Wow. Bill Maher's closer seemed to leave his audience stunned.

[Atman]

Hope the clip is up soon. Pretty amazing...ripped the ugly scab off America's wound, the GOP, and Obama's/Dem's ridiculous need to compromise. Great stuff.

[eleny]

1. and it's only the start of his new season

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Here: Live stream, repeat, beginning now.

http://tvpc.com/Channel.php?ChannelID=1941

[RainDog]

7. thanks n/t

[travelingtypist]

11. Thanks for this link.

I've never gotten to watch Real Time this soon on Friday before.

:hi:

[Kat45]

21. Shit, the link is gone.

I started watching it earlier, then had to stop it to do something else. When I went to resume, it started the video over and it was a totally different show on. Fuck!

[freshwest]

25. I couldn't get the Bill Maher clip, instead it was playing a mentoring story.

I couldn't find the heading 'new' or any other place to get the show. And it was advertising 'conservative chat now' on the sidebar on the left side of the webpage. Looks like the conservatives are all that we will ever hear from again.

I also went to the official Bill Maher website and found the episode number for today which is #199. All I could get was the picture of the episodes, no play option, just a screen shot. Nothing. I don't know if it's being blocked.

My ISP is Comcast and guess what, that's all there is here, period. It's a monopoly by a big corporation and they could care less what we think. I'm bummed by all this in our face after they threaten and kill people and get away with it, and they stay on the air.

I see that they control all the advertising, even on 'liberal' websites. The guy in in Arlington who was counting down how many people in D.C. to kill, gloating over Giffords, is getting a slap on the wrist. They all are. Those who oppose them are being shut out.

Did I say I was bummed? If anyone finds another link please message me or post it here, okay?

[dixiegrrrrl]

62. hmmm...

Your ISP is Comcast.
Mine is Frontier.
I got the channel to play just fine.
Damn, too bad you do not have any other option.
Satellite internet, maybe?

[freshwest]

72. Thanks very much for the idea, but it hasn't worked here. Too much interference.

But someone provided me with the details and a few links, which I am posting here for anyone else who needs them. And it explains the picture very well, I think:

MSNBC Drops Keith Olbermann
John Nichols | January 21, 2011

MSNBC announced Friday night that it was dropping Keith Olbermann <1>, the outspoken host of the network's top-rated show whose courageous commentaries during the Bush-Cheney years cleared a space for progressive talk on cable TV.

Ten minutes before the close of his show Friday night, the host whose willingness to highlight the high crimes and misdemeanors of George Bush and Dick Cheney electrified liberals during the darkest days of the previous administration, announced: “This will be the last edition of ‘Countdown.' <2> I will explain that, next.”

After a commercial break, Olbermann seemed to suggest that the decision -- announced just four days before President Obama's State of the Union Address, a major moment for cable commentators -- had come as a surprise, at least to the host.

“I think the same fantasy popped into the head of everybody in my business who has ever been told what I have been told: this will be the last edition of your show,” Olbermann ruminated. “You go to the scene from the movie ‘Network,’ complete with the pajamas and the rain coat, and go off on a verbal journey of unutterable vision and you insist upon Peter Finch’s guttural resonance and you will the viewer to go to the window, open it, stick out his head and yell. You know the rest. In the mundane world of television goodbyes, reality is laughably uncooperative.”

Quoting his hero, pioneering TV newsman Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann finished with the line: “Good night and good luck."

Olbermann "Countdown" program became a favorite with progressives when the former sports commentator emerged as an ardent critic of the Bush-Cheney administration at a point when few critics of the war in Iraq and assaults on civil liberties at home had national media platforms. He remained popular as Democrats came to power in 2008 -- so much so that candidate Barack Obama sat down for interview with the host. <3>

After Obama became president, Olbermann's program evolved; while he sometimes split with the White House on matters of policy, much of his attention was directed at right-wing critics of the administration (from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin and the Tea Partisans) who Olbermann bluntly dismissed as extremists and "worst persons in the world."

"He was one of the few voices in the media willing to hold the Bush administration accountable and fight the right wing smears against progressives and their policies," recalled Media Matters for America founder and CEO David Brock.

Even as Olbermann helped to brand MSNBC as an liberal alternative to the conservative Fox cable network, the edgy and uncompromising host had wrangled with NBC brass -- especially in recent months <4>.

In November, Olbermann was briefly suspended after it was learned that he had made contributions to the campaigns of several Democratic political candidates. A national campaign, led by groups such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee <5>, supported the host. After Friday's announcement, PCCC co-founder Adam Green said: "Keith Olbermann did real journalism and spoke truth to power during the Bush years when most reporters fell down on the job. For that, he is a hero to many Americans -- including the 300,000 people who signed our BoldProgressives.org petition to put Keith back on the air last November."

Despite that recent controversy, the Friday night announcement came as a surprise.

Here is the email from NBC-Universal in its entirety:

"STATEMENT REGARDING KEITH OLBERMANN: MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract. The last broadcast of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors."

There was no further explanation from the network of the decision.

Olbermann was not available for comment.

But, rest assured, this move will stir plenty of debate. The announcement regarding Olbermann came at the close of a week that saw Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department's anti-trust division approve the merger of Comcast and NBC. That stirred speculation about a media giant purging a progressive.MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines immediately declared, “Comcast had nothing to do with this decision."

Less than an hour after announcing that Olbermann was out, MSNBC announced evening line-up shifts that kept progressive favorites such as Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz in prime positions.
That said, NBC and MSNBC officials were obviously aware that the Olbermann move would be controversial.

Corporations tend to release the bad news late on Friday afternoon, when most reporters are headed home.

But the really bad news they save for after 8 on Friday night.

The email from MSNBC was sent at 8:02 p.m. EST.

The second email, which arrived a little before 9 p.m. EST, read:

"MSNBC PRIMETIME PROGRAM CHANGES

“THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O’DONNELL” MOVES TO 8 PM ET

"‘THE ED SHOW’ MOVES TO 10 PM ET

"NEW YORK – January 21, 2011 – Starting Monday, January 24, 'The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell' will move to 8 p.m. ET/PT and 'The Ed Show,' hosted by Ed Schultz, will move to 10 p.m. ET/PT on MSNBC. The announcement was made today by Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC. 'The Rachel Maddow Show' will continue to air live at 9 p.m. ET/PT.

"Since its debut in October 2010 at 10 p.m.ET, 'The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell' has been a strong addition to the MSNBC primetime line-up. In the forth quarter of 2010, the show’s first full quarter on the air, 'The Last Word' ranked #2 among A25-54 and total viewers beating CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” in all key demos and had MSNBC’s strongest A25-54 performance in the 10 p.m. time period since the first quarter of 2009.

"'The Ed Show' launched in April 2009 at 6 p.m. ET on MSNBC. 2010 marked the best total viewer performance in the 6 p.m. ET hour ever for MSNBC, with 'The Ed Show' ranked #2 in both A25-54 and total viewers for the full year. 'The Ed Show' averaged 643,000 viewers in 2010 and 158,000 among viewers 25-54, while CNN’s 'Situation Room' averaged 542,000 total viewers and 149,000 in the 25-54 demographic. Ed was up 8% in A25-54 and up 20% in total viewers, while CNN has dropped –28% in A25-54 and –29% in total viewers.

"Also starting Monday, Cenk Uygur, MSNBC contributor and host of the popular web show 'The Young Turks,' will be filling in as host of the 6 p.m ET hour."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/...bc-drops-keith-olbermann
Links:
<1> http://abcnews.go.com/Ent...nt/wireStory?id=12735064
<2> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...wn_with_keith_olbermann/
<3> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egKDzrLAsB0
<4> http://latimesblogs.latim...ptly-departs-msnbc-.html
<5> http://boldprogressives.org/

http://readersupportednew...-controversial-departure

[nckjm]

3. it was fantastic

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Rachel Maddow is in rare form

No spoilers from me, but she brought down the house with applause.

[Divine Discontent]

6. she said she had no idea why he left, doesn't know anything, etc. Maher said that was bunk,

and frankly, I think we need to not worry about what people think about the truth. I love that Maher brought up Worst Persons, that is the very thing I told my mom on the phone, and said the rulers of media don't like there minions being called out daily, and their deeds...

[Fuzz]

5. Republicans, Obama has done everything to appease you short of using bleach.

[Brilliantrocket]

8. I like Bill but,

He's too anti gun. Sure in a perfect world ,but I think all that pot has gone to his head.

[JamesA1102]

20. I didn't care for the racist remark either nt

[Forkboy]

23. What racist remark?

[jillan]

35. He said something like Obama has done everything to get the GOP to like him except use bleach.

horrible, horrible remark.

[comsymp]

44. I guess we interpreted it differently

Seemed to me that he was saying that, no matter what he says / does, no matter how much "common ground" he tries to find with them, the GOP is *never* gonna like him because of his race; therefore, if he wanted to gain their approval, etc. IOW, he basically called the GOP a racist group, with which I largely agree (see Fox News: Not Racist But #1 With Racists).

Edgy, but hardly racist. Of course, YMMV.

[eShirl]

48. exactly

[Le Taz Hot]

50. THAT remark was right on.

[Enthusiast]

54. Plus one! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

58. I'm not sure if it was clear

but I was agreeing with Bill Maher.

[girl gone mad]

51. Shame on him for offending Republicans like that!

:eyes:

[WinkyDink]

55. Ha! I think it's pretty funny and spot-on, myself!

[BlueJazz]

65. What he said.

:)

[mistertrickster]

68. Accurate and funny, imho. Racists deserve to be mocked. nt

[Forkboy]

22. ....

:eyes:

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Well, thank god THAT stuff isn't legal!!!!!!!

:eyes:

[calimary]

27. No such thing as being too anti-gun.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forrest Greene]

29. Better The Pot Than The Gunshot, Eh? Wot?

[Upton]

30. Yeah I sort of agree..

Maher is going overboard with the anti gun obsession. Though I will say there's nothing wrong with using pot, nothing wrong with exercising your 2nd Amendment rights either. It's all about freedom.

[TheWraith]

33. Maher falls into a trap of hypocrisy, there.

He insists that people interfering with his right to smoke pot because they think it's immoral are infringing on his rights... and he's correct. But he also believes that HE has the right to dictate whether other people choose to own guns. And ironically, in both cases it's because the other side believes that the inanimate object in question magically turns the user into a crazy murderous psycho. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

43. The difference is, guns actually kill people all the time. Pot doesn't.

Even if I thought gun control was desirable, it's simply not realistic in this country, and it's just not going to happen in any meaningful sense, not at a federal level. Ever.

But contrast that, and the fact that high-powered weapons are available in sporting goods stores all over the country, and the hysterics with which pro gun people are convinced that the government is just seconds away from grabbing all their guns...

contrast that with the FACT that we're throwing large numbers of people in prison for non-violent drug crimes, many of them pot related, many of them simple possession, even- the FACT that we spend $40 Billion a year (not incl. costs of incarceration) waging "war" on pot, the FACT that we still have swat teams kicking down doors of clinics to snatch brownies away from cancer grannies..

It's fucking ridiculous, and there is no equivalence to the situation. On one hand, you have items clearly designed for the express purpose of killing or maiming humans that are perfectly legal, even encouraged in many sectors of society- then you have a relatively benign plant that, at worst, makes most people silly or hungry or creative or sleepy or (this, I think, is the real problem) horny... and it is completely against the law for consenting adults to put into their OWN FUCKING BODIES in every state in the union.

Ridiculous.

[TheWraith]

45. I'll rephrase.

The first piece is the implication that firearms are somehow inherently immoral, because they're "clearly designed for the express purpose of killing or maiming humans." In fact, almost none of the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country will ever be used for that purpose, or may ever be used for that purpose. And when they are, it's the fault of the user. But people who dislike firearms see no redeeming qualities or legitimate purpose in them whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the other side sees marijuana usage as inherently immoral, because it's "only designed to get high, make you lazy, and destroy human lives." Despite the fact that it almost never does that, and when it does, it's the fault of the user. But people who dislike pot see no redeeming qualities or legitimate purpose. And no, you don't have drug raids, but you have the very real fact of a constant anti-firearms push from a certain segment of politics, particularly in states like California.

In any event, they don't need to be exactly the same for it to be hypocritical that you want to encourage one and ban the other.

Disclaimer: the author has tried both pot and guns, though definitely not at the same time. Also, where is this pot that makes you horny? When I smoked with my ex girlfriend, she warned me that it could have seriously... shall we say, "relaxing" side effects on one's sex drive while high.

[Electric Monk]

46. What's the difference between "almost none" and "slightly more than none" ?

besides the amount of "immoral drug raids"?

[LooseWilly]

47. Could you, as long as you're waxing all-knowing, explain why "immorality" is such a big issue?

I mean, guns are "clearly designed for the express purpose of killing or maiming humans." That was the purpose for which I acquired my guns. And, it is an immoral, or amoral at best, purpose. If I should have occasion to use my guns for the purpose for which I acquired them, being the purpose for which they were designed... it will be immoral, or at best amoral.

Is there a reason that you resist acknowledging this fundamental truth? Are we all children who are afraid to don the "black hat of a villain" should we choose to, by necessity or what have you, act immorally/amorally at best?

What about marijuana (or any number of other drugs)? Whenever I've smoked (or by other means ingested) it it has been because it is "only designed to get high, make you lazy, and destroy human lives" ... well, except for the problematic logical details that it isn't "designed" so much as "evolved"... and that the "destroy human lives" requires a hell of a lot more "projection" and/or "extrapolation" than the comparable "maiming humans" portion of the other half of your dichotomy.

Nevertheless... are we, again, children afraid to don the "black hat of a villain" should we choose to act amorally, or ... immorally if we stretch all sense of moral judgement?

Maybe you should've used heroin, instead of pot, for your comparison... I mean, just so it wouldn't sound quite so ridiculous when examined.

In any case, can you please explain why you seem to stake the judgements of your conflation on "immorality" rather than some other judgement? Social destructiveness, for example? Body counts perhaps? Resultant jail times maybe?

What led you to the "immorality" index, I wonder?

I'd really like to know.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. What is, for instance, a handgun designed to do?

That's a serious question. It's a tool, designed for a purpose. What is that purpose?

I mean, if it's to shoot at paper targets, okay, that's what it's for. If glocks are designed for duck hunting, then, okay.

But I'm not talking about whether the majority of the ones that are out there are actually used for anything, or if they just sit in a box making their owner feel safe/happy/powerful because they're there. I am talking about what the thing, itself, is designed to do.

One can make an argument that rifles are designed for, say, moose or deer hunting. But handguns? Ak-47s? They're designed for one purpose, and that's to kill or maim human beings. Whether the killing or maiming is intended to be a threat only, or intended as self-defense, what have you- the fact remains that like a hammer is designed to push nails into things like wood, a handgun is designed to accelerate bullets at high speed--- into people.


Moving on. I don't think I ever said I want to ban guns, unless the "you" in "you want to encourage one and ban the other." is rhetorical.

What I have said is, irregardless of what I do or don't want, and irregardless of the "certain segment in politics" that may actually want to ban some or all guns, even the most modest sort of firearms regulation IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, not at the federal level. Even in California, I don't think anyone is going to take your guns away. There's a 'certain segment in politics' that wants to ban pictures of naked women, too, or meat eating-- there are a lot of people with unrealistic, fevered dreams of banning all sorts of shit- but none of it is going to happen. Not in our lifetimes.

Whereas a relatively benign plant that doesn't have a body count- intentional or otherwise- to speak of, is ALREADY banned, and like I said, we spend $40 Billion a year and turn something like 60 Million otherwise law-abiding Americans into criminals in the misguided attempt to "fight" it. It's not just that the situation with guns is similar but not identical, they're not even close.

As for my own personal views on the matter, I don't like guns. They give me the creeps. And when I think, at times, just how heavily armed the population in this country appears to be, that gives me the creeps, too. It just does. But I also tend to reflexively err on the side of personal and individual freedom, and in addition to knowing the 'gun control' is a political dead end in this country, it's not a front burner issue for me either way. I'm not comfortable -sorry, I'm not- with any 22 year old budding schizophrenic being able to walk into Wal-Mart and walk out the same day with a glock with a couple 30 round clips or whatever, but I understand nothing is going to be done about it. Ever. I also have members of my immediate family who are very strong 2nd Amendment boosters and, shall we say, firearms enthusiasts.

Lastly, as far as pot making one horny. All I can go on is personal experience, along with anecdotal. YMMV. I always found pot to be a sensory expander and something that let to richer hedonic experiences; be that listening to music, eating food, having sex, what have you. Now, if the pot was smoked along with a fifth of scotch, different story entirely on sex.

[beevul]

71. Designed...

"I am talking about what the thing, itself, is designed to do."

The thing, itself, is designed to reliably and repeatedly propel a projectile via gas explosion, at a target of the users choosing.

:shrug:

I agree with your take on MJ FWIW.

[WinkyDink]

56. Do you not discern the difference between his "designed for" and your "be used for"?

[RichGirl]

57. Apples and oranges.

NOBODY with an ounce of sense believes that smoking pot turns the user into a crazy murderous psycho!!! And there is absolutely no evidence to back it. You can't kill anyone with pot. It doesn't even hurt the user like alchohol does and you don't hear of accidents caused by people driving while smoking.

Guns of themselves don't turn anyone into anything, but they are a weapon used to kill people and there is no other purpose for them.

Bottom line....a crazy murderous psycho can do a lot of damage with a gun. Whereas pot would calm him down and he'd be satisfied to just sit and contemplate his navel. There simply is no comparision between the two.



P.S Just recently read this on twitter: People who get drunk run stop lights, people who smoke pot wait for the light to turn green.

[beevul]

70. No not really.

"a weapon used to kill people and there is no other purpose for them."

Lots of people enjoy the discipline of marksmanship. Thats another purpose.

Hunting is another easy one.

There are others, that whether recognised or not, are other purposes.

Theres 300 million+ guns in the hands of over 80 million Americans.

299 million+ guns aren't haven't and wont be used to kill people.

In light of that, why does purpose matter?



"People who get drunk run stop lights, people who smoke pot wait for the light to turn green."

Its true.

America needs to stop with the drug war already. Its a solution far worse than that which it seeks to solve.

[dixiegrrrrl]

63. An excellent point.

[Bluebear]

40. Well, that was convincing.

:eyes:

[Clio the Leo]

9. If Obama took Maher's approach to governing...

.... we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.

Maher reminds me of the big fat guy in the bleachers who thinks the MVP of the Superbowl is running the ball too much.

[JamesA1102]

17. Well said nt

[RainDog]

19. LOL

I bet Bill is just torn up by your attempt to deflect from the actual problem.

[Clio the Leo]

31. LOL

second time someone replied in this fashion. im disappointed that fans of a funny man can't come up with more than that.

some of us despise Obama, see no merit in him and think he's an embarrassment to the party

some of us feel the same way about Maher (he IS a Democrat, right?)

[RainDog]

36. I don't know his political affiliation - he might be an independent

some of us think that this nation is on a trajectory for disaster and no one in a position of power seems to be able to stop it - or seems to want to.

when someone notes that truth, no matter who it is or what particular label someone wants to put on him or her - that's acknowledged.

the sad truth is that it's not about a particular person - it's about the way in which power is wielded in this nation. I don't know if the political party of one or another matters as much as some want to believe, iow - about the big issues.

[Clio the Leo]

37. You're exactly right. Obama has NO desire to help this country...

... it's all a big joke to him. He could care less if the country went down the toilet. :sarcasm:

egads the hyperbole with which we communicate.

by passing some of the most progressive legislation in years, Obama has tried to placate the Republicans? that doesn't even make any sense

[RainDog]

39. did you intentionally misunderstand what I wrote

is your desire to take offense so great that you cannot understand that I was not criticizing Obama but rather the system in which all American politicians now interact?

yes, the hyperbole. also the misunderstanding.

it's not outrageous to find that the system under which we are operating is incredibly strained at this time when you look at the numbers of people who are in distress at this time b/c of the impact of, say, the financial sector or the supreme court ruling that made corporations citizens or the way in which Clinton, for instance, touted policies that were detrimental to the economic welfare of millions of Americans.

There are so many ways in which the leaders of this nation fail the American people - and the problem is systemic. You think that what exists at this time is good enough.

others don't agree. I simply noted, previously, that those who point out problems are doing their part to try to improve the situation as well - by refusing to accept the "good enough" - analogous to saying.. hey, this guy is bleeding to death over here - I don't think a band aid is going to fix his problem.

in any case, best wishes to you. I hope things are improving every day and those of us who are a bit less sanguine with the current state of affairs will just turn out to be overly concerned

[Clio the Leo]

59. "no one in a position of power seems to be able to stop it - or seems to want to. "

was pretty easy to understand.

[Clio the Leo]

64. .... and my issue is not that Maher is "pointing out problems."

Rachel "points out problems," criticizes the President when she feels it's deserved and I adore the woman.

It's his approach.

If your rhetoric is so absurd ("the President has done everything short of bleaching his skin to appease the GOP") that you piss off half of the people you're trying to alert, then what have you accomplished?

We need more Maddows on cable TV and fewer Mahers.

[Clio the Leo]

38. and as for whether or not the parties matter...

... I am quite clear which party is actively trying to take away my sick cousins insurance coverage and I'd imagine most of us here at Democratic Underground are aware of it to.

[RainDog]

41. well, a professor at MIT was talking about the way in which the two parties collude

to create a financial caste that is spared the very problems your sick cousins face... and it's not only your sick cousins, of course, who face issues.

poor women who are denied access to reproductive health services are just as important as your sick cousins, for instance.

but... I'm done with this. bye bye.

[LooseWilly]

49. No, Maher is NOT a Democrat. He's a Libertarian, if I'm not mistaken.

In any case, he's definitely NOT a Democrat.

Obviously, Obama hasn't converted him.

[Clio the Leo]

60. and that explains it all.....

.... I dont have much use for libertarians be they Bill Maher or Rand Paul.

[Tutankhamun]

66. Bill Maher is not a Democrat. He's an independent.

He mentions that frequently. Maybe it's easier to despise him, see no merit in him and consider him an embarrassment to the Democratic Party if you don't really know that much about him.

[sabrina 1]

67. No, I don't believe he's a Democrat. I think he's claimed to be a

Libertarian.

[TheWraith]

32. Amen. It's easy to have loud opinions when you have NO responsibility for implementing them.

Your analogy is spot on.

Sure, we could have gone in, tried to arrest Bush and Cheney for treason, spent years investigating the Bush admin, tried to force a DU-preferred healthcare package and every other bill. It would probably feel really satisfying, even. And for the trouble we would have lost all public opinion, probably lost the Senate, and President Obama would be sitting somewhere in the low 30s going into the early stages of the next presidential campaign. Instead, we passed a historic amount and quality of legislation, including unprecedented reforms, and we're on the upswing right as the chance at power gives the Reps the opportunity to rip themselves apart.

[Clio the Leo]

34. There is a reason Barack Obama is President...

... and Maher is an arm chair pundit who gets paid for stirring the pot. They both do their jobs very well.

[Bluebear]

42. LOL

[Le Taz Hot]

52. ". . . the big fat guy in the bleachers . . ."

Stay classy. :eyes:

[Clio the Leo]

61. I watched too much Maher last night, he rubbed off on me. nt

[RainDog]

10. that asshole is lying about wage gains for the poorest. outright lies

I cannot believe that he insists he is stating facts - this is what is so wrong - stats indicate that wages have been FLAT or DECLINED for more than 40 years.

fuck these assholes. fuck them.

[truedelphi]

69. Notice the reverrent manner that the RW pundits use

When using the "word" capitalism"
However:
Capitalism no longer exists. The major tenet of that economic theory was that investors put up their own money, and if they made poor investment decisions, they went down.

Now that the Federal Reserve, with the Geithner/Bernanke(Paulson) Trio handing over most of our monetary excellence for the next ten years to the Major Wall Street people, we have a system in which the richest people are guaranteed socialized protections for their immense investments, come rain or come shine. With feudalism in place for everyone who is not Uber-rich.

[kentuck]

12. The rumor is that Comcast wants to buy HBO.

Is there any truth to it?

[PBS Poll-435]

13. Probably not

Home Box Office, owned by Time Warner.

They ain't gonna give that up.

[applegrove]

14. Yup. He said it very well. Dems need to man up.

[Bonobo]

15. He killed it with that final word. It was spectacular and hilarious and sad. nt

[bluerum]

16. Not at all. He said what needs to be said. I happen to agree with him. eom

[davidwparker]

18. Loved it. Will watch the rebroadcast. I had learned about

KO at the beginning of show and afterward, came to my office to read what the blogs were saying.

Yes, the compromise stuff was fantastic and just how I feel.