I watched the video, and was mildly shocked that it was an official Trump ad. The story is absurd on its face. If it were legitimate, the FBI would be confirming it. Instead it's being promoted exclusively by partisan hacks with zero credibility. Hell, in Giuliani's case it's already a known fact that he's compromised by the Russians. It's also known that the Russians have been planning to promote disinformation. Text is by far the easiest evidence to fake.

But I'm quoting you because after watching the video and going into the comments on an ad this stupid, you managed to follow it up with some absolutely batshit projected attacks, and reading your comment honestly made me guffaw. I fucking guffawed Bob, good-naturedly at the actual hilarity of it. No joke, the upside-down topsy-turviness of it actually legitimately tickled my funny bone because what you wrote was so insanely bonkers. There aren't just *hints* at Trump having actually fucking raped children, it's damned near certain when you look at the various evidence. He's a fucking child fucker. Trump. He almost certainly did it, and it's goddamned obvious. So this whole line of attack of "Biden = pedophile" is hilarious. Ghastly too, but hilarious.

You're such a weird enigma, Bob. I don't like to buy into conspiracy-esque shit like "Bob's a Russian account with multiple people behind it," but... sometimes it feels on point.

This moment seemed pretty petty to me.

I get you're angry, and you've got plenty of reason to be angry, he broke the law repeatedly, sneered at attempted enforcement, then rigged his own trial and everyone on the Republican side, including Roberts went along with it. Effectively the United States now is no longer a Democracy. When Democratic institutions intended to deal with abuses of power are perverted to the extent where they are effectively meaningless it doesn't matter whether a leader was elected or not, he is a dictator.

I expect the results of the election this fall won't matter. He'll just sit in the White House and claim victory, forcing a court challenge where he has all his soldiers lined up in judicial robes ready to do his bidding.

America has fallen and the Republic of Trump has taken its place.

Tearing up speeches isn't going to change that. Either fight, or try to win enough support that he can't reasonably claim victory in the fall. This only helps to alienate some who might be on the fence you know Fox is going to run with "Look, Pelosi's no better, see, she's a partisan hack!"

@bobknight33
unsure if you are gloating that you uncovered some deep,dark secret,and are exposing some political conspiracy.

or are just re-iterating what i already posted.

for years i have seen you promote and tout the validity and necessity of the tea party for those who may be disgruntled with the mainstream republican party.

a party that started with modest means,but is now funded by some of the most wealthy and influential political players in our country:the koch bothers.

they even changed their name to the freedom caucus.
and they nominate candidates,and come out to support them.

so how is the tea party,which broke away from the establishment republicans to promote a politics that is more in line with the constitution,ANY different from the people who are sick and tired of corporate,establishment democrats? who ALSO have decided that enough is enough and have banded together to nominate their own candidates,and support those candidates to represent THEIR politics and ideological philosophies.

how,exactly,is that different?

because while you may disagree with justice democrats politically,and i suspect you do,you should also be proud that they are taking a stand and sticking up for their beliefs.

are you SO unaware of your own bias,prejudice and hyper-partisanship as to not recognize when a group of people are doing the EXACT same thing as your tea party did?

be careful bob,your bias and hypocrisy are showing.
and you are becoming a partisan hack,attacking any and everything that is contrary to your own politics,even when in reality it is performing the very same thing that you state to admire.

so what is more important to you?
honesty,integrity and sticking to your moral values?
or political affilliations?

because i can disagree with someones politics,and still admire and respect them standing up for their values.(that includes you bob).

i gather this is something you are incapable of doing,because in bob's world"politics trumps everything else,end of discussion.

if you want to sully your eyes a bit,check out what the justice democrats are seeking to do,and what their base philosophy is:
https://justicedemocrats.com/platform

*promote
*quality

>> ^kevingrr:

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."
@StukaFox
Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.
Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.


I upvoted because my reaction to this is that we've ended up in a world a lot closer to Aldous Huxley's shiny, distracted, and soul suckingly disconnected dystopia than we have 1984's drab, brutal, overtly totalitarian one. Our dystopia is much harder to break out of, because on the surface it seems open, free, and filled with prosperity, until you scratch the surface, and see the rot festering underneath.

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984. They can shamelessly go from lauding an individual mandate as the "personal responsibility principle that's essential to bring costs down" and then when the party's needs change, decry the same policy as somehow being a violation of everything that Americans hold sacred. All this while demanding they still be treated as if they were serious people of conviction and principle, and painting those who dare to point out their hypocrisy as some sort of dishonest partisan hack.

The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice. Maybe it's time to stop pretending this is politics as usual, and see it for what it really is: a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.

Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.

Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

I'm not particularly interested in the social issues either. This country is degenerating at an exponential rate and I doubt anything will change that.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

>> ^shinyblurry:


If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply.

>> ^Barbar:

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.
Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.
What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.




I pretty much agree with Barbar.

And, criticizing Santorum doesn't mean I can't criticize Obama. His appeal to religion is nowhere near the same level as Santorum's, but I don't like either tactic. I think it's more in line with how things are "supposed" to run to leave religion out of the entire process, no matter who is running.

I use more than two brain cells when I think, and when I do, I infer that the right usually have specific social policies in the crosshairs when they try to get us revved up by using religion. Abortion, contraception, gay marriage. These are all specific issues that are directly impacted by the Right's appeal to Christian voters. They aren't shy about name calling (neither is Winstonfield_Pennypacker it seems). They tend to forget, if they were to be elected, they would have to represent all Americans, not just Christians.

And so, while I'm not a fan of Obama's appeal to churches or religion, it's different from the way Republican candidates, namely Santorum, invoke religion to get a vote. If you look at my previous posts, I make a pretty clear distinction between an individual stating his believe and a government official letting his personal religion guide policy. The thinking seems to be: Since most of us are Christians let's use religion to our political advantage.

So, when religion becomes a justification of the decisions our government makes, we need to call them out.

If you actually believe he is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile. I expect you're smarter than that, but sufficiently dim to expect nobody to follow the link. Yeah, he mentions Jesus, but I rather suspect it's an attempt to reduce the deficit that's driving him, not a religious compass. He's just saying in an offhand way, 'Hey republicans, here's a way to square this with the ministry of Jesus.' presumably to preemptively take the wind out of their sails in the future head butting.

Yes, Obama is campaigning. I'm no fan of Obama any more, that is for sure. Never really was a fan of either party, although Obama briefly gave me Hope(tm) before flushing it down the toilet. I don't see how it's relevant that some of his grassroots efforts are in churches. Is that not typically the case? Either way it's a complete straw man.

What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy. It was based on a misunderstanding not only of the text, but also of the practical implementation of the ammendment over centuries of history.



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".
Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/i
ndex.htm
And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU
So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Also, I've not used sarcasm anywhere on this page.


Oh yeah, sorry. I was talking to myself there. Instead of uncultured libertarians, I actually meant everyone else.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^If you really support Ron Paul and his free market economic vision for the country, then why should it matter to you that someone who is kind of a jerk likes these things too? Does Coulter's support somehow diminish the things you find admirable about these two institutions? I hope not, because she probably likes music, pizza and puppy dogs too.


I appreciate your concern, but you're creating a false dilemma. I want everyone to support Ron Paul. But a fraud is a fraud. Kinda like posting a video as a "joke" when really it's just a lame attempt to associate a candidate with a partisan hack while pandering to your own base for cheap votes. Or maybe my sense of humor just isn't functioning properly again.

>> ^marbles:

Cenk had a good argument till he said republicans are far far worse and that whole spiel. So democrats are just the lesser evil??? He doesn't want Obama to be a meek candidate in 2012? WTF. Who cares about that, He's President NOW. So Cenk disagrees with Obama's policies, but he's worried that Obama isn't going to tell him the right lies when he's campaigning this time around?
The Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America? Like the Democrat party isn't??? Like Obama hasn't been Wall Street puppet at every opportunity possible?
Cenk, is this just your way of appeasing your MSNBC bosses and coddling your audience of leftist hypocrites? The whole mentality that Obama needs to start being a strong candidate by opposing Republicans so you can support and vote for him again is vulgar. It's sickening.
Cenk -- you're just another partisan hack.


Yup, he's been using the term "we" when talking about democrats, and now this, such a shame. I thought he had a really great show too, but money > all.

Cenk had a good argument till he said republicans are far far worse and that whole spiel. So democrats are just the lesser evil??? He doesn't want Obama to be a meek candidate in 2012? WTF. Who cares about that, He's President NOW. So Cenk disagrees with Obama's policies, but he's worried that Obama isn't going to tell him the right lies when he's campaigning this time around?

The Republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America? Like the Democrat party isn't??? Like Obama hasn't been Wall Street puppet at every opportunity possible?

Cenk, is this just your way of appeasing your MSNBC bosses and coddling your audience of leftist hypocrites? The whole mentality that Obama needs to start being a strong candidate by opposing Republicans so you can support and vote for him again is vulgar. It's sickening.

Cenk -- you're just another partisan hack.

LOL @ the fact we don't know Obama's grades.

Seriously, after what we know about George W. Bush's time in college, you're gonna slam him over that?!

*GASP* HE DOESN'T WRITE HIS ENTIRE SPEECHES HIMSELF?!

This is as lame as people trashing George W. Bush about his past of illegal drug use decades before he ran for President.

Stop being a partisan hack and contribute positively to political discussions for a change.

Before I make my points, I just want to say I'm not especially an Obama supporter, but with that said:

A. Beck has not been called a neo-fascist by Obama.
B. Beck isn't the President of the United States.
C. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It is not 100% accurate that Obama always sees the US as the villain. He does not see the US as the villain in World War II, Afghanistan, the Cold War overall, I could keep going on and on. You're wrong, clearly, plainly, clear as day.

Let me slippery slope you the other way - Are you seriously suggesting the US has never made a mistake?! The War of 1812 was a good idea? How about invading Iraq the last time without a plan on how to occupy it first? How about giving military support to Saddam in the first place? Bay of Pigs? Political strategy in Vietnam? Slavery? Denying women the right to vote for more than half our history?

How about I wait 10 years, and bring up an Obama policy you disagree with, and say, "See? You think the US is ALWAYS the villain, that's 100% accurate!"

How about you stop being a partisan hack and contribute something meaningful to political discourse?! Newsflash: the US has and will continue to make mistakes. Having a critical eye on your own country doesn't mean you think your country is always the villain. It means you're doing what you should be as an American citizen.