BTW, those of you who've been trying to call Olbermann or Rachel the left's Hannity or Beck, say hello to the genuine article.

What did he say wrong?

If you lowered his IQ sixty points and gave him lips made for kissing rich peoples' asses, then he might be a Beck or Hannity.

is he a former baptist preacher?
boycotts?prove to him?
i was surprised he didnt compare conservative-ism to satanism,because ed shultz is PREACHING the very same jingoistic BULLSHIT we heard from the neo-con fucktards just a few years ago.just coming from a different perspective is all.
shit like this really boils my nuts,im sure there is a nugget of clarity in what he is saying,but just like hannity,oreilly and beck..you have to shovel an armfull of shit to get to it.
it is sad to see how blatant the corporate media whores itself to those it is beholden to.even sadder when i see my fellow countrymen buy into this garbage.
i need a beer.....

If GM can't compete in the marketplace, then screw them. THAT is how the free market works my friend. No bailouts.

I stopped buying GM after my second car. The first car croaked far too early, then they sold me a fucking lemon, they fucked me over on it until I was forced to give up and get rid of the car.

I have owned multiple Japanese built cars (they were built IN JAPAN by Japanese workers). The cars have had ZERO problems and have been on the road 10 years and 6 years respectively and have a LOT of life left in them.

My two GM's survived 3 years and 2 years each. Before being shit canned.

Build a decent non-shit car, and stop screwing customers over. Then maybe. Just maybe I'll try buying US again. Otherwise GM deserves to go bankrupt.

>> ^rougy:
What did he say wrong?
If you lowered his IQ sixty points and gave him lips made for kissing rich peoples' asses, then he might be a Beck or Hannity.


I don't think he said anything wrong, and I agree that to really make him Hannity he'd have to be dumber, and to be Beck he'd have to say that the Republicans are treasonous Nazi's looking to send GM workers the American Dream to the gas chamber, but he's the closest thing to a mindless TV demagogue the left has.

He's not consistent about it, but he's very prone to use "with us or against us" framing for his questions to guests, and he gets his facts flat out wrong sometimes.

Other times he's as sweet as can be to right wing hacks who deserve a firebrand, and then he'll use the firebrand on people who probably don't warrant it (like Ron Paul).

He's best when he just rants, in my opinion. He's real good at populist outrage.

If there were ever a time for populist outrage, it's now.

The cons will watch people starve, lose their jobs, and die of sicknesses that they cannot afford to pay a doctor to cure, and why?

Because "socialism" is "evil."

If there is one thing wrong with the democrats and the left in general, it's that we're not mad enough, and nobody is doing anything about it.

We'll never make any progress as long as we kowtow to rightwing expectations and play by their rules.

I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

Yeah, socialism isn't evil. It just doesn't work very well.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.
Abraham Lincoln


>> ^rougy:
If there were ever a time for populist outrage, it's now.
The cons will watch people starve, lose their jobs, and die of sicknesses that they cannot afford to pay a doctor to cure, and why?
Because "socialism" is "evil."
If there is one thing wrong with the democrats and the left in general, it's that we're not mad enough, and nobody is doing anything about it.
We'll never make any progress as long as we kowtow to rightwing expectations and play by their rules.

^ Regardless of all that, it's pretty crappy to boycott a company explicitly because it received a loan from the government, especially when the purpose is to "show people socialism doesn't work".

If you're sure it's going to fail, why taint the result by trying to interfere with the process?

Besides, I think conservatives really should give up on the frivolous socialism charges. So far the effect has been to raise the favorables on the word "socialism," since they're calling moderate, practical, and popular ideas socialism, and talking about Europe as if it's some sort of scary, unpleasant place.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by bjornenlinda.