@korogaru213 I just wasn't feeling the new theme. This theme gets me excited (being a political junkie). The idle music (that they play from 1:14) is great when they go from race to race.
Same here. I was disappointed when they dropped it for the midterm election cycle. I was just thinking the other day that the new graphics (which I love) would go great with this music... lo and behold they brought it back!
This is the best news theme music all time... Chuck Todd hosting the daily rundown in the president Obama tenure, and at the same time doing touch screen maps to predict what is next is genius... Msnbc is the best political network followed by CNN
Can someone capture the Yahoo/ABC debate theme currently playing on the Yahoo Politics page for the just concluded GOP debate in Iowa...it is just as good as this one!
This theme is so in keeping with NBC News' long standing quality theme music, dating back to The Huntley-Brinkley Report theme song. It's a shame, it doesn't look like they're using it in '11.
Hands down the best election music ever used by a network. They actually started using it in '04, and I hope they use this for at least a couple more presidential elections. The same guy composed the iconic Dateline NBC theme back in '95.
Firstly, i agree.... Social security is good, but ONLY to a certain extent. If you don't provide proper incentives, it goes from being a safety net to a problem. Secondly, my beef is with some of the governors, as well as the feds. Govt in general is a problem when it taxes exorbidently, no matter what level they are. The federal govt, however, is the main problem since its top marginal tax rate is at almost ur income! (comment continued next post since i ran out of room)
ahh i love msnbc's election theme. they would probably get more viewers on election night if they just play that, instead of the communist rantings of their so-called "reporters"
@megarockification our reporters (notice I removed the quotation around reporters in your comment) are better than fascist biased stupid Fox reporters. At least our reporters now how to TALK to the camera. Only Americans think Fox is a good news network. Talk to anyone outside of our country. They'll say, "what kind of news do you have over there in the U.S.? Our news over here is nowhere similar to the biased reporting done in yours."
@starwarsworld LOL biased is the unofficial slogan for msnbc. Your "reporters" (notice I re-inserted the quotations u foolishly left out) are vicious and manipulative when it comes to discussing anybody they remotely disagree with. Remember Kieth Olberman's psychotic rant about Scott Brown being a "racist teabaging homophobe who supports violence against women?" And yet some (namely chris matthews) get "thrills up their leg" whenever they hear Obama speak.
@megarockification remember when Bill O'Reilly cuts people off if they start talking about something that he disagrees with since he's superbly biased. Also, MSNBC is unbiased because remember back when Keith Olbermann was suspended due to a political contribution to a democrat. Fox News lets it's "reporters" donate to candidates all the time. Reporters need to be objective
@starwarsworld HA! Kieth Blubbermouth isn't a "reporter", let alone objective. The only reason he was suspended was because he made the network look even worse than it was (if thats even possible) - not because he supported a candidate, which the loons on MSNBC do constantly. As for cutting people off in interviews, i refer u to election night 2010, when the 4 amigos were gigling like little schoolgirls and yelling over Michele bauchmen. At least fox has the decency to use REAL reporters.
@megarockification They're not real, Fox hires them, their bosses tell them what to say, and the "reporters" end up being puppets of Rupert Murdoch's shitty corporate empire. he'll be eighty this March, when he dies (which'll probably be soon) he will leave the most fucked up legacy anyone could ever see.
@starwarsworld Well your right about one thing... Fox does hire them (and not some communist regime like u'd obviously prefer). The difference between fox and msnbc is at least you know what ur getting. Their commentators have strong and vocal opinions (as they should), and their news reporters are fair (just ask palin who got her ass kicked by carl cameron during the campaign). If it were any different, their ratings would be down the crapper like msnbc's.
@megarockification Do you know why MSNBC has crappy ratings? Have you ever considered that there are more dumb people in the wold than there are smart? There's your answer. The majority of people in the United States are conservative and therefore they watch FOX. Look at the Gallup poll on their official website. Oh and by the way, can I mention to you that I have nothing against Republicans. They used to be liberal at a time. Lincoln (supposedly our greatest president) was liberal obviously.
@starwarsworld Wait lemme get this straight - according to u: if u believe ur in charge of ur own destiny, then you are "dumb"; but if you like the government spoonfeeding and controlling you then ur "smart"? TALK ABOUT A PARADOX! Perhaps its time the far left to get off their high horse and stop presuming to know whats best for everyone.
As for america being full of conservatives... are u refering to the almost 70 million who voted for obama? They don't seem all that "conservative" to me!
@megarockification for one, conservative is an ideology, they voted for Obama because they probably didn't like McCain. Idk, ask the Gallup Poll people, not me! Second, there is no real evidence that "destiny" is real, government is REAL and can therefore replace that. Third, we don't spoon-feed anyone, we are a safety net to those who NEED HELPto live a normal life or sub-standard life. Lastly, we don't "pretend to know what's best" we KNOW what's best for the ENTIRE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.
@starwarsworld thanks for proving my point about what an arrogant self-serving cult the far left is. The liberal mantra of being open-minded, fair and all accepting is clearly a big fat lie. As for the safety net, I don't see how transfering wealth from a small business owner who worked 18 hour days and took immense risk to make it successful, to some latte sipping college student who never worked a day in their life, seems fair. How about protecting the real disadvantaged instead of the losers?
@megarockification If you think that the liberal mantra of being open-minded, fair and all accepting is a big fat lie, and then you criticize the safety net, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Redistribution of wealth creates this fair equality. Competition is good, but only to an extent. Giving money to poor is good, but only to an extent, because work can't get done. We are only stimulating and encouraging them to get more work and find more jobs.
@starwarsworld for u to get my seperate comments about the lie and the safety net mixed up shows that u have no idea what your talking about. A safety net for the truely disadvantaged is important, but when it becomes the centre of the economy with job-creaters being taxed at 60% in some states, and others running off to social security demanding their free money, we got a problem. The goal should be to CREATE wealth, NOT REDISTRIBUTE IT. Otherwise everyone except the govt ends up poor e.g. Cuba
@megarockification Cuba redistributed it back to the government. Democrats hope to redistribute back to the people in our nation. Your argument with the states taxing 60% is invalid in federal taxes, as states are allowed to tax whatever they want. Blame it on the governor. Likewise, social security is good, what if you lost your job? I know you were successful, but maybe you just had bad luck and that happened. The government is there on your side (just like NATIONwide, get the joke haha)
@starwarsworld . (continued from previous post) Lastly, do u honestly think the cuban revolution happened with its leaders promising to take all the money and leave everyone poor? It NEVER happens that way. Corruption occurs only AFTER the govt becomes too big to manage. Its the same story with the soviets, its the same story with much of europe. Thats why we must prevent that from happening now, and ensure individuals are able to take care of themselves rather than be dependant on govt.
@megarockification I'm not talking about dependency, I'm talking about aide, the idea that the very thing that we put our votes and faith into to lead our nation also has the right to help its own people. Conservatives restrict the right of the government to help its OWN people. The government has rights to you know, it's an entity that we must keep in mind when it comes to aide for our people.
@starwarsworld Again, I agree with u partially. Govt should provide a SMALL safety net to protect the truely underprivellaged. Where u and I disagree is over how large that safety net should be, and I contend that If you let it grow too big (like many on the far left want), u get dependance on government. Remember that woman showing up to some agency yelling "wheres my free obama money"? As for government having "rights"... that doesnt make sense. Taxpayers own govt, not the other way around.
@megarockification we both have equal representation in the United States, taxpayers and the government alike. I understand your fear, but we can expand our governmental powers just a little more, when FDR expanded government powers, he did one of the BEST things that helped to improve our country. We can't put all our faith in the people. Government people are the people who know what they are actually doing to lead the nation since they have inside info to problems, we don't.
@starwarsworld Government and taxpayers don't have "equal representation". Citizens have "equal representation in government. It is not a seperate institution... if it were, America would be an autocracy. As for "government being smarter and having inside information"... I assume ur not talking about the loons in congress (DEM and REP alike) who racked up a $14b deficit, spending fake cash on rubbish like lobster ropes in Maine? I really don't see how they know what they're doing.
@megarockification It's better than what would happen if the government shrunk and there was more power to the people than there was to elected officials who went to college for government, who went through internships in the government, who know how to lead and contribute to the country.
@starwarsworld All I can say is WOW! You honestly think its better to have out-of-touch elites running the government than individuals having more power, simply because "they went to college"? Stalin and hitler had the same idea... look at where they and their mercilous autocracies ended up. If you really think that only government officials know how to "contribute to the country" and everyone else is stupid, I suggest you consider moving to Iran. Their political system is right up your ally.
@megarockification I suggest that we expand our government and maybe have smart people elect our leaders. You're using Stalin and Hitler. Hitler was a fascist if you didn't know and Stalin was a socialist, so therefore, you're comparing do opposite sides of the political spectrum getting fucked up. This is the solution, and from here I would like to end this debate because we've expanded from reporters to political ideologies to Hitler and Stalin: The middle is the best ideology.
@starwarsworld I use hitler and stalin coz, though they were of different ideologies, they both had similar values. Both believed in socialised medicine, in every citizen having a government job, and that people were too stupid to govern themselves and needed to be guided by "elites". While their motivation was different (hitler by race, stalin by class), their goals were the same - big oppressive govt! Its not surprising u want to end the debate here... Liberals hate to admit when their wrong.
@megarockification well, I really don't see where you're going with "liberals hate to admit their (it should "they're" by the way) wrong." because doesn't everyone hate to admit they're wrong. And also I know I'm right about using Staling and Hitler in the same comparison because for one Staling hated Hitler, for two they were COMPLETE different sides of the political spectrum, they're very different in their beliefs and ways to rule. If you want to continue the debate, sure. I'll do it.
@starwarsworld Hitler's actions were driven by nationalism; Stalin's actions by social warfare. However, when u compare the two, the things they did were remarkably similar. Both sought full govt control of property, both sought the eradication of those who disagreed. My point is, the centre of both regimes was an enourmous govt who believed their citizens were too stupid to govern themselves. The idea that they are on different sides of the spectrum is rooted in their beliefs, NOT actions.
@megarockification Okay, soooooo where is this argument going with the beliefs, not actions thing? Really the debate started out with which political ideology is right for a growing nation. Ideology doesn't reflect the person governing. It's not my fault, nor is it yours that those two leaders were too stupid to realize what they were doing was wrong. Talking ideology wise, Stalin's beliefs were a lot better than Hitler's. I'm not going to sit here and argue about two political figures.
@starwarsworld Where is it going? I am simply explaining that your idea of giant Govt and elites choosing lawmakers has been tried in the past - with DISASTEROUS consequences. Yea... its not OUR fault they did what they did, but it wasn't their's either. It was the system's fault, which gave them limitless power to abuse, as is ALWAYS the case when the government becomes too big too control. As for Stalin being "better"... the 10 million Ukrainians who died of starvation would likely disagree.
@megarockification the 15 million Jews who died under Hitler's reign of terror would also disagree. Secondly, you say the system is at fault with giving unlimited power and larger government, however without a large government, you can't govern. The larger the government, the stronger it becomes, and with that comes the ability to enforce whatever you're trying to enforce more efficiently.
@starwarsworld Efficient? You have got to be kidding. Govt is probably the most inefficient institution around. The private sector can do many things govt can do, and at a fraction of the cost. Compare Amtrak to private rail, the post office to fedex, and private health insurance to the Massacheusets debacle. And yes, it does make it harder to govern when its size is smaller. Thats the point! It prevents the body from getting to powerful and acting in its own interests like mugabee in Zimbabwae.
@megarockification too bad little government can cause more problems since it is harder to enforce certain issues. Secondly, Amtrak works way better since it ends up getting government subsidies unlike trains in the private sector which don't even run the entire nation.
@starwarsworld You keep on saying small govt causes more problems, but haven't given a single example where that's true, even though I've given tons (both current, historical, local and international) of why its not. As for Amtrak, Yes thats right. Private companies don't own the infrastructure to deliver that sort of network everwhere now. What I'm saying is, if Amtrak is privatised, the running costs would be significantly less as there's incentive to reduce it, resulting in cheaper fares.
@megarockification If Amtrak was privatized, it wouldn't be able to run as successfully and would have higher fares so that it could run successfully. Example of small government being bad, remember that the government and taxes are responsible for more than social security, e.g. Road Building, Law Enforcement, Defense, Health (in most countries), Disability allowance, Subsidies for essential
industries, e.g. farming, transport , Diplomacy, Regulation of industry
@starwarsworld If it were privatised, the first thing that would happen is management would seek to cut out all the waste weighing the business down. Once other companies come into the market, the business becomes more efficient and prices drop to compete. Just imagine how much waste would be involved if govt were in the business of making cars or other consumer products. Not only will prices soar, the technology will be years behind because there's nothing driving development (cont. next post)
@starwarsworld As for those things U've described, I partially agree. But they are not the markings of big govt... they are basic services provided by all govts. I'm not an anarchist. Of course the govt must exist and do its job, but it should NOT do things that can be done by the private sector, and it should not impose on the free market (such as with agricultural subsidies and protectionism).
P.S. for defence, I'm kinda surprised u mentioned it... I thought liberals hated the military =P
@megarockification we don't hate the military, goes to show how narrow-minded conservatives can be. We wait random warfare (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...) Secondly, the gov't gives agricultural subsidies because some years, crops don't grow well and we need to give these farmers money though, or else they'll just quit and go work in an office. (The crops don't grow because of lack of water, overpopulation causing more demand, and because rising global temperatures cause the crops to burn)
@starwarsworld Afghanistan's random warfare?! u've got to be kidding! Need I remind u of something called 9/11? But I suppose the blood of 3000 americans spilled in NYC at the hands of radical muslim jihadists isn't enough to justify action by you far lefters.
As for farming subsidies, all it does is skew the free market mechanism. Transfering money to richer farmers with big lobbyists (ignoring the smaller farms), to produce something that isn't even efficient. Not to mention taxpayer cost!
@megarockification The money goes to small farms if you didn't know. We stand against big business, and love big government to aid everyone including the small farmers. Second, Afghanistan should've been a done deal with ridding the world of Bin laden during Clinton's presidency. We were close, Bush told the CIA to lay off the Bin Ladens when he first entered, THEN GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? So now we're hunting him again, and who knows if he's still alive or not. All those tapes could be hoaxes.
@starwarsworld Thats not true, especially in Iowa. While some small farmers get subsidies, a large proportion go towards the bigger corn farmers who end up putting the smaller farmers out of business. That's what happens when govt sticks its tentacles where they don't belong. And exactly! Clinton should have gotten rid of osama years ago, but didn't because he was too busy with Monica. Now we're left with a mess... America was attacked, and there has to be a strong response against the radicals.
@megarockification Oh yeah sure bring Monica into this. Let's all go around complaining about a personal thing that Bill Clinton had that didn't get in the way of how his presidency carried out. His impeachment trial shouldn't even have occurred, and now that's all dumb asses like you remember him for. Also, capitalism is what causes small farms to get fucked over, competition automatically allows the larger farms to win. Secondly, Clinton was closer than Bush, at least he didn't say to lay off!
@starwarsworld "How does competition cause big farmers to win"? It forces them to bring cost down, and gives smaller players a foot in the industry. As for capitalism hurting farmers - compare those in Cuba and venezuela to that of the United States and I think you'd find the opposite is true! And yes, that bimbo did affect clintons presidency. He was going to launch airstrikes to take osama out, but changed his mind when the story broke, thinking ppl would believe he's trying to distract them.
@megarockification This thing about him launching air strikes is most likely not true, because he wouldn't tell anyone "oh, about the air strikes I was going to launch, I thought it would be a distraction so I decided not to." Secondly, capitalism used to work as a system until large corporations came in and started to take over. Thirdly, I bet you're a birther, and lastly, I bet that you're siding with Walmart on this supreme court ordeal instead of the females in our society.
@starwarsworld firstly, here's an article from ur own left-wing "news" network that proves my point: /id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/ (add this at the end of msnbc url)
Secondly, those big and small businesses you despise are the ones providing 95% of the jobs (assuming ur not too busy leeching off taxpayers to find work), and big corporations have always existed throughout history; Thirdly, am I to take the fact ur resorting to name calling as an admition your running out of facts to argue with?
@megarockification if you read the whole article, it said that they wanted to capture him alive which reduced the chance of getting at him. Second, Clinton didn't want to launch a war against Al-Qaeda. Thirdly, this proves against your first comment you ever made that I commented against (MSNBC has "reporters") Well, guess what, we're not left-wing biased, because we attack our own side unlike Fox that loves the right and attacks the left everyday. And where did I call you a "name?"
@starwarsworld u called me a birther and implied I hate women - 2 things u have absolutely no basis to suggest. It's like me calling you an antisemite without proof. Secondly, the reason ur "reporters" are attacking Dems is because they arn't driven by party - its ideology. Thats why they were so biased against Hillary in 2008. Obama reflected their more radical views. Thirdly, the article completely contradicts your claim that Clinton almost got Osama while bush "let him go". That was my point.
@megarockification well, maybe you should read Colin Powell's book about Bush telling his administration to lay off the Bin Ladens. Secondly, I didn't call you a birther, I said I would bet upon it that you would be a birther. I never said you hated women, I said you would probably side with Walmart since you would love to help out these large corporations, that is your ideology isn't it?
@starwarsworld As a matter of fact, it isn't. What on Earth does believing in personal responsibility and limited government control have to do with a sex-discrimination case and nutjobs who claim Obama is a foreigner? Like most liberals, you obviously can't seem to agrue on the facts so you have to try and link your oponents to the fringe. As for Colin Powell, that is absolute rubbish. He never said that and you know it. If it were, we would have never gone into afghanistan in the first place.
@megarockification This was prior to us going to Afghanistan. Bush told them to stop the hunt for Bin Laden before 9/11 happened. And secondly, I'm not name-calling, plus you're the one fighting against fact. Hitler and Stalin being the same kind of people is completely against any real fact. If you read biographies of both men during their leadership, they did things differently to their country, people, and their administration. That is fact for you.
@starwarsworld Again, thats not true. The US had CIA operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout 2001, with the purpose of limiting Alkhida's influence. After 9/11, the objective became to destroy them. As for Hitler and Stalin... YOUR RIGHT! They are different people and did different things (Hitler prefered gasing, Stalin prefered starvation). They both, however, had one common feature - a gigantic government behind them that they used to suppress their people and increase their power.
@megarockification Hitler had limited government, in fascism, the government is limited to one leader, therefore, the government doesn't exist. Two, spell Al Qaeda right, three spell gassing right, and four. Bill Clinton launched missiles at them and it didn't work. I think Clinton was smart for not starting a gigantic ground invasion when nothing had happened yet. The missiles did act as preemptive strikes though. Watch History Channel's Ten Ways to Kill Bin Laden, you'll learn something.
@starwarsworld For you to say that Hitler had no government, and fascism is controlled by one person, makes me think that you don't watch the history channel (let alone read!). Hitler had one of the largest beaurocracies behind him - a well documented fact. Even the most closed minded left wing hack will admit that. And what exactly is your point about Clinton? I don't seem to recall Bush launching a ground offensive until after american blood was spilled on the streets of New York.
@megarockification yeah well you're sitting around criticizing my man Clinton for not doing anything. He tried, and it didn't work, no blood was spilled, as you previously said, so he didn't send in ground troops. I agree with sending in ground troops when the blood was spilled, but you're attacking Clinton for making a good decision........ Second, although he had a bureaucratic government, guess who solely controlled it?
@starwarsworld So now u say u agree with the war in Afghanistan? Just a few posts back, u called it "random warfare". But don't worry... as much as I'd love to critisise u for flip flopping, I'm actually going to congratulate u on seeing the light. Kudos to ya!
As for Hitler, he wasn't solely in control. He had a lot of operatives around him. But thats not the issue. The fact is, it is a large govt that allowed him to get that powerful, and it is a large govt u are advocating. Connect the dots.
@megarockification ok without large government, people would get more powerful connect the dots with that. And second I don't criticize the war in Afghanistan, I criticize the way that they run things there and how we aren't accomplishing anything. We're trying to help people fight against the Taliban by creating trust. However, when the Florida pastor burned a Quoran last week, Afghanistan attacked the UN building there. This shows that we need to strengthen our strategy of gaining trust.
@starwarsworld Yes, individuals get more power and freedom to take control and responsibility of their own lives. So what exactly is wrong with that?
And yes, the Afghanistan war is being executed poorly. The American military not using enough force in fighting off the Taliban, letting them push the war towards stalemate. The embassy attacks is a classic example of how control is being lost, and until control is re-gained, they will never trust us. Nice to see us agree on at least something!
@megarockification if there is one thing we can agree on, it has to be anything dealing with our dissatisfaction towards anything that is run inefficiently as seen above through all our rantings on any sorts of inefficiencies we can find. Haha.
@starwarsworld Haha. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds good =)
I suppose we should just agree on the fact that you and I disagree on just about everything. Although I've got to admit, Its been a fun month and a half of debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as me =D
@megarockification I did enjoy it, but I have to admit that I was wondering when it would end. Haha hey at least we're at compromise unlike the negotiations for a budgeting and spending plan going on in Congress which I'm mad about at both sides all partisan politics aside, I want them to come to agreement and move on with this mess.
@starwarsworld Yea thats true. The partisan bickering over $30b, which is basically pocket money, is disgraceful. The Dems are being too obstuctionist, and the Repubs are grandstanding over nothing. If they can't agree on this, what hope is there for next year when $6 trillion is on the table.
@starwarsworld Yeah me too. To cut that much you've got to rip a lot out of the budget. But thats what happens when congress and the white house spend like drunken sailors, and now risk defaulting. We have bush and obama to thank for that.
@megarockification I think the fact remains, that we won't fix this crisis for a while. We need another FDR to come in and get us out. He fixed a depression, and we need someone that can actually fix the recession. I actually think now's the time in American history where we just have to pick the person who can actually get us out of a mess, and partisan politics aside, Obama isn't doing too well, at least not compared to what FDR had to put up with (which should be much worse)
@starwarsworld To be honest, it wasn't FDR who fixed the depression alone (though his policies helped). As callous as it sounds, it was actually WWII. As the threat posed by Hitler grew, many US allies, like the Brits, started stockpiling weapons, most of which were bought from the US. As a result, the munitions industry boomed, and it impacted the whole economy. The best way to fix our current recession, however, is to strengthen the dollar by reducing inflation - stability is key to recovery.
@starwarsworld Well usually the economic benefit occurs at the begining. After a while, it becomes a massive drain because of the cost. Economically, even Iraq gave it a slight boost in the beginning, but that was before the multi-trillion dollar cost was realised (much of which had to be borrowed). Very quickly, it became a negative.
@starwarsworld Economically, absolutely. Which is why I don't understand it when people say Iraq and Afghanistan are all about oil and wealth. The amount spent would far far far exceed any possible benefit.
@megarockification Iraq is about oil and wealth. Afghanistan is about finding and capturing Bin Laden AND securing ties with the Afghan people to fight the Taliban forces. However, pretty soon we will be in Afghanistan....... For their giant surplus of underground lithium.
@starwarsworld Yeah! FINALLY some good news this year! For once, Obama made a really good judgement call.
Its a pity Bin Laden didn't surrender though... I would have been much happier to see him waterboarded in gitmo with some STD-infected urine after what he did. But hey, his body being fed to the sharks sounds good as well =)
That was on a much more massive scale though. Federal government spending went from under 10% of total GDP prior to the war starting to a whopping 52% of total GDP in 1945. 42% of that spending in 1945 was on defense.
To put those numbers in perspective the federal government today spends less than 20% of total GDP with only 6% of that on defense.
Our industrial might was unparalleled and mobilized to full capacity for the war. That means lots of economic stimulus and jobs.
@redwingsmike3718 Well you can't really compare the situation of wwII to the present when it comes to spending, mainly because the factors were very different. 52% of GDP reflected a desperate life-or-death situation in a war that could have been lost. Workers were forced to leave their jobs and work in munitions. That is not the case today. Given we are in peace time, the fact the Govt still spends 20% of GDP is outragous. And its all going to entitlement programs that didn't exist back then.
You do realize I was responding to another comment on World War II helping the economy as opposed to the current wars, right? I'm not arguing for government spending. I said the reason why it helped the economy back in the 1940s is because the sheer scale of our spending.
In other words, you and I are in agreement but your reading comprehension needs work.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
MSNBC is the most far left news channel. It has Ed, Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. It is the worst news channel out there and no one should watch it because they give you false, leftist information.
@DoverBroadcasting Fox News isn't THAT conservative? Their marquee names are Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. This is like me forming a network anchored by Bret Michaels, Sammy Hagar, and David Lee Roth and saying that it "isn't THAT 80s hair-band".
@DoverBroadcasting Oh, I don't disagree at all that MSNBC is a liberal network. Of course it's liberal. I just think it's somewhat odd to claim that Fox "isn't THAT conservative" when their headliners are a veritable who's-who of far right personalities.
@seventypercent I think we can all agree that ALL media personnel have a bias one way or another; the trick is can I get more than one viewpoint on any of these networks? Fox does the best job of at least getting two sides of any argument (This doesn't include their "opinion" programs of course) followed by CNN. MSNBC has clearly given up trying.
@DoverBroadcasting name a liberal that has a show on fox. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Dylan Ratigan. They may not be crazies like most on fox, but they are definitely conservative, and aren't afraid to say what they think. fox is more biased than MSNBC from what I can see.
This is another reason why MSNBC pwns the other stations, even though I love CNN too. Maddow, Hall, Olbermann, Shuster, the Morning Joe crew...all of them. I love them.
@nextstep333 The theme is so powerful and stirring that it is unfair for synthesizers to have a hand in it. I want to hear it from a full symphony orchestra! Can you arrange that, NBC? Please?
I have a question. Why are people having a political debate when the video posted is just the theme music of the elections? I dont know...maybe I'm missing something...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In Spain we still remember how the U.S. supported the dictatorship of General Franco. Panama also remember how a CIA agent became the President of that country, and how the country was invaded in response to disobey Washington orders. Spain, Cuba, Chile, Panama, Pakistan... U.S. is characterized by supporting their business interests. They never have supported freedom or democracy, except in the Second World War (and I still have some doubts).
Emmets -- as you likely know most of my fellow Americans are ignorant of the actions done around the world by our military and political leaders in our name -- or just deny the truth when confronted by the facts. But your comments are correct, of course...
i have to ask....are you guys laughing your balls off at how much of a fight some are putting up to defeat basic health care rights? I only ask because as an American i sometimes wonder how we can be this backwards even today... :(
even though it passed i am stupified that it even was a fight....i mean its basic health care!!!! how can you be against it...sorry rant over :)
The only thing I like about Ron Paul is his non-interventionist foreign policy. Other than that, I don't share his libertarian views.
In essence Ron Paul is not mainstream Republican, he's a libertarian. Joe Lieberman is and always will be a Democrat. Although he supports the war in Iraq and supported McCain in the election, he's still a Democrat and these days he's back to his usual self...
How can you seriously maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy as the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world? So you would just let people die if the government of a nation was committing genocide against its own citizens?
Are we doing anything in Sudan right now? From what I can tell, we're letting the genocide in Darfur go on... Listen, I agree with you that as the sole superpower, we have certain responsibilities, but if we keep sticking our nose into everyone's business, we'll be inviting more hatred and disdain. I'm not proposing, isolationism, I'm just saying that we shouldn't do things unilaterally and act like international law doesn't apply to us.
But we should be doing something in Sudan. I agree we shouldn't act unilaterally, international law does apply and we should act with the approval of the UN or at least within the confines of it, but what we can't do is let massive amounts of people die. It's immoral and frankly turning a blind eye leads to more chaos than anything. If you are getting at whether I think Iraq was ok then no. We acted alone, we didn't have approval from the UN and there was no serious human rights issues.
After Obama finishes his 1st term in office, I just hope the republican party has an idea that Obama is NOT a failure when it comes to changing america!!! I am a Independent voter (Who voted for a democrat)
When Bush was in office, he just messed everything up... The economy was shattered, broken, and oh yeah he invaded Iraq!!! So he wasn't a good president... His #2 (Dick Cheney) kept moving his mouth blaming obama!!!
I am a die-heart Obama fan, and I support him 100%... No comment further
eastern89 20 hours ago
OBAMA-Clinton 2012!!! change we really can believe in!!!
eastern89 1 week ago
@eastern89 GAS AT $ 5.00 and going up, Drink more Kool Aid !!
dewerbylhserf 21 hours ago
FAMU should play this
me2237247 2 weeks ago
The best damn election theme music ever.
corbettwes 3 weeks ago 2
THEY BROUGHT THIS MUSIC BACK!!!! WOOOOT!!!!!
korogaru213 3 weeks ago 13
@korogaru213 I'm stoked! I e-mailed Chuck Tod a week ago and recommended him to tell them to bring it back!
GSMFederer 3 weeks ago
@GSMFederer
A lot of people probably told them to bring it back--thanks for being one of them! I jumped out of my seat when I heard it haha!
korogaru213 3 weeks ago
@korogaru213 I just wasn't feeling the new theme. This theme gets me excited (being a political junkie). The idle music (that they play from 1:14) is great when they go from race to race.
GSMFederer 3 weeks ago 3
@GSMFederer
Same here. I was disappointed when they dropped it for the midterm election cycle. I was just thinking the other day that the new graphics (which I love) would go great with this music... lo and behold they brought it back!
korogaru213 3 weeks ago 2
Obama 2008 "Yes We Can"
Obama 2012 ♪ Let's stay together ♫
oneputtsteven 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@oneputtsteven Obama 2012 We need more Kool Aid !! Obama should apologize for burning the Constitution.
dewerbylhserf 21 hours ago
it sounds like a MIDI file.
nalahverdian 1 month ago
Not sure why they retired this, it was EPIC
michaellongo11 1 month ago
I think they retired this theme. #bummer
GoReds10FuckOff 1 month ago
:(
JuliT56 1 month ago
This is the best news theme music all time... Chuck Todd hosting the daily rundown in the president Obama tenure, and at the same time doing touch screen maps to predict what is next is genius... Msnbc is the best political network followed by CNN
eastern89 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can someone capture the Yahoo/ABC debate theme currently playing on the Yahoo Politics page for the just concluded GOP debate in Iowa...it is just as good as this one!
kulu3850 2 months ago
Anyone can defeat Obama on 2012. Obama is done. America can't wait to put him back where he came from.
GIONELLIO 3 months ago
Ron Paul will defeat Obama in 2012.
freakylocz14 4 months ago
OBAMA2012
4TruthWarrior 4 months ago 16
@4TruthWarrior You left out the "Is going to lose" between "Obama" and "2012". Obama is done in 2012. GOP 2012!
BansheeGun 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4TruthWarrior Obama should apologize for burning the Constitution
dewerbylhserf 21 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama Biden 2012
jamaicandonj1 5 months ago
This theme is so in keeping with NBC News' long standing quality theme music, dating back to The Huntley-Brinkley Report theme song. It's a shame, it doesn't look like they're using it in '11.
Lafayette320 5 months ago
John Williams did NOT write this - it's Michael Karp
markvidpa 7 months ago
reminds me of superman.
lolbena 7 months ago
"Now from NBC News Election Headquarters in New York, here's Brian Williams".
JoshX1993 7 months ago
Anyone know who composed this theme?
dantro78 8 months ago
@dantro78 John Williams, he composed all of the NBC Themes.
TarrVlogs 7 months ago
@TarrVlogs Not true - it's Michael Karp who composed it.
markvidpa 7 months ago
@markvidpa Your completely right, my bad. Thanks for the correction. :)
TarrVlogs 7 months ago
Obama 2012!
glory789 9 months ago
Hands down the best election music ever used by a network. They actually started using it in '04, and I hope they use this for at least a couple more presidential elections. The same guy composed the iconic Dateline NBC theme back in '95.
devswartz 10 months ago 5
Firstly, i agree.... Social security is good, but ONLY to a certain extent. If you don't provide proper incentives, it goes from being a safety net to a problem. Secondly, my beef is with some of the governors, as well as the feds. Govt in general is a problem when it taxes exorbidently, no matter what level they are. The federal govt, however, is the main problem since its top marginal tax rate is at almost ur income! (comment continued next post since i ran out of room)
megarockification 11 months ago
People watch some weird stuff on the internet...myself included
MrFerrariDaytona 1 year ago
All time best election theme! NBC changed it in 2010! Whoever made that call should be FIRED!!! Bring this theme back!!!
cicio428 1 year ago
@cicio428
Like Keith Ulberman?
HalfBornUnicornFetus 1 year ago
ahh i love msnbc's election theme. they would probably get more viewers on election night if they just play that, instead of the communist rantings of their so-called "reporters"
megarockification 1 year ago
@megarockification our reporters (notice I removed the quotation around reporters in your comment) are better than fascist biased stupid Fox reporters. At least our reporters now how to TALK to the camera. Only Americans think Fox is a good news network. Talk to anyone outside of our country. They'll say, "what kind of news do you have over there in the U.S.? Our news over here is nowhere similar to the biased reporting done in yours."
starwarsworld 1 year ago
@starwarsworld LOL biased is the unofficial slogan for msnbc. Your "reporters" (notice I re-inserted the quotations u foolishly left out) are vicious and manipulative when it comes to discussing anybody they remotely disagree with. Remember Kieth Olberman's psychotic rant about Scott Brown being a "racist teabaging homophobe who supports violence against women?" And yet some (namely chris matthews) get "thrills up their leg" whenever they hear Obama speak.
Still great theme music though.
megarockification 1 year ago
@megarockification remember when Bill O'Reilly cuts people off if they start talking about something that he disagrees with since he's superbly biased. Also, MSNBC is unbiased because remember back when Keith Olbermann was suspended due to a political contribution to a democrat. Fox News lets it's "reporters" donate to candidates all the time. Reporters need to be objective
starwarsworld 1 year ago
@starwarsworld HA! Kieth Blubbermouth isn't a "reporter", let alone objective. The only reason he was suspended was because he made the network look even worse than it was (if thats even possible) - not because he supported a candidate, which the loons on MSNBC do constantly. As for cutting people off in interviews, i refer u to election night 2010, when the 4 amigos were gigling like little schoolgirls and yelling over Michele bauchmen. At least fox has the decency to use REAL reporters.
megarockification 1 year ago
@megarockification They're not real, Fox hires them, their bosses tell them what to say, and the "reporters" end up being puppets of Rupert Murdoch's shitty corporate empire. he'll be eighty this March, when he dies (which'll probably be soon) he will leave the most fucked up legacy anyone could ever see.
starwarsworld 1 year ago
@starwarsworld Well your right about one thing... Fox does hire them (and not some communist regime like u'd obviously prefer). The difference between fox and msnbc is at least you know what ur getting. Their commentators have strong and vocal opinions (as they should), and their news reporters are fair (just ask palin who got her ass kicked by carl cameron during the campaign). If it were any different, their ratings would be down the crapper like msnbc's.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification Do you know why MSNBC has crappy ratings? Have you ever considered that there are more dumb people in the wold than there are smart? There's your answer. The majority of people in the United States are conservative and therefore they watch FOX. Look at the Gallup poll on their official website. Oh and by the way, can I mention to you that I have nothing against Republicans. They used to be liberal at a time. Lincoln (supposedly our greatest president) was liberal obviously.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Wait lemme get this straight - according to u: if u believe ur in charge of ur own destiny, then you are "dumb"; but if you like the government spoonfeeding and controlling you then ur "smart"? TALK ABOUT A PARADOX! Perhaps its time the far left to get off their high horse and stop presuming to know whats best for everyone.
As for america being full of conservatives... are u refering to the almost 70 million who voted for obama? They don't seem all that "conservative" to me!
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification for one, conservative is an ideology, they voted for Obama because they probably didn't like McCain. Idk, ask the Gallup Poll people, not me! Second, there is no real evidence that "destiny" is real, government is REAL and can therefore replace that. Third, we don't spoon-feed anyone, we are a safety net to those who NEED HELPto live a normal life or sub-standard life. Lastly, we don't "pretend to know what's best" we KNOW what's best for the ENTIRE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld thanks for proving my point about what an arrogant self-serving cult the far left is. The liberal mantra of being open-minded, fair and all accepting is clearly a big fat lie. As for the safety net, I don't see how transfering wealth from a small business owner who worked 18 hour days and took immense risk to make it successful, to some latte sipping college student who never worked a day in their life, seems fair. How about protecting the real disadvantaged instead of the losers?
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification If you think that the liberal mantra of being open-minded, fair and all accepting is a big fat lie, and then you criticize the safety net, then you have no idea what you're talking about. Redistribution of wealth creates this fair equality. Competition is good, but only to an extent. Giving money to poor is good, but only to an extent, because work can't get done. We are only stimulating and encouraging them to get more work and find more jobs.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld for u to get my seperate comments about the lie and the safety net mixed up shows that u have no idea what your talking about. A safety net for the truely disadvantaged is important, but when it becomes the centre of the economy with job-creaters being taxed at 60% in some states, and others running off to social security demanding their free money, we got a problem. The goal should be to CREATE wealth, NOT REDISTRIBUTE IT. Otherwise everyone except the govt ends up poor e.g. Cuba
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification Cuba redistributed it back to the government. Democrats hope to redistribute back to the people in our nation. Your argument with the states taxing 60% is invalid in federal taxes, as states are allowed to tax whatever they want. Blame it on the governor. Likewise, social security is good, what if you lost your job? I know you were successful, but maybe you just had bad luck and that happened. The government is there on your side (just like NATIONwide, get the joke haha)
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld . (continued from previous post) Lastly, do u honestly think the cuban revolution happened with its leaders promising to take all the money and leave everyone poor? It NEVER happens that way. Corruption occurs only AFTER the govt becomes too big to manage. Its the same story with the soviets, its the same story with much of europe. Thats why we must prevent that from happening now, and ensure individuals are able to take care of themselves rather than be dependant on govt.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification I'm not talking about dependency, I'm talking about aide, the idea that the very thing that we put our votes and faith into to lead our nation also has the right to help its own people. Conservatives restrict the right of the government to help its OWN people. The government has rights to you know, it's an entity that we must keep in mind when it comes to aide for our people.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Again, I agree with u partially. Govt should provide a SMALL safety net to protect the truely underprivellaged. Where u and I disagree is over how large that safety net should be, and I contend that If you let it grow too big (like many on the far left want), u get dependance on government. Remember that woman showing up to some agency yelling "wheres my free obama money"? As for government having "rights"... that doesnt make sense. Taxpayers own govt, not the other way around.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification we both have equal representation in the United States, taxpayers and the government alike. I understand your fear, but we can expand our governmental powers just a little more, when FDR expanded government powers, he did one of the BEST things that helped to improve our country. We can't put all our faith in the people. Government people are the people who know what they are actually doing to lead the nation since they have inside info to problems, we don't.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Government and taxpayers don't have "equal representation". Citizens have "equal representation in government. It is not a seperate institution... if it were, America would be an autocracy. As for "government being smarter and having inside information"... I assume ur not talking about the loons in congress (DEM and REP alike) who racked up a $14b deficit, spending fake cash on rubbish like lobster ropes in Maine? I really don't see how they know what they're doing.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification It's better than what would happen if the government shrunk and there was more power to the people than there was to elected officials who went to college for government, who went through internships in the government, who know how to lead and contribute to the country.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld All I can say is WOW! You honestly think its better to have out-of-touch elites running the government than individuals having more power, simply because "they went to college"? Stalin and hitler had the same idea... look at where they and their mercilous autocracies ended up. If you really think that only government officials know how to "contribute to the country" and everyone else is stupid, I suggest you consider moving to Iran. Their political system is right up your ally.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification I suggest that we expand our government and maybe have smart people elect our leaders. You're using Stalin and Hitler. Hitler was a fascist if you didn't know and Stalin was a socialist, so therefore, you're comparing do opposite sides of the political spectrum getting fucked up. This is the solution, and from here I would like to end this debate because we've expanded from reporters to political ideologies to Hitler and Stalin: The middle is the best ideology.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld I use hitler and stalin coz, though they were of different ideologies, they both had similar values. Both believed in socialised medicine, in every citizen having a government job, and that people were too stupid to govern themselves and needed to be guided by "elites". While their motivation was different (hitler by race, stalin by class), their goals were the same - big oppressive govt! Its not surprising u want to end the debate here... Liberals hate to admit when their wrong.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification well, I really don't see where you're going with "liberals hate to admit their (it should "they're" by the way) wrong." because doesn't everyone hate to admit they're wrong. And also I know I'm right about using Staling and Hitler in the same comparison because for one Staling hated Hitler, for two they were COMPLETE different sides of the political spectrum, they're very different in their beliefs and ways to rule. If you want to continue the debate, sure. I'll do it.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Hitler's actions were driven by nationalism; Stalin's actions by social warfare. However, when u compare the two, the things they did were remarkably similar. Both sought full govt control of property, both sought the eradication of those who disagreed. My point is, the centre of both regimes was an enourmous govt who believed their citizens were too stupid to govern themselves. The idea that they are on different sides of the spectrum is rooted in their beliefs, NOT actions.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification Okay, soooooo where is this argument going with the beliefs, not actions thing? Really the debate started out with which political ideology is right for a growing nation. Ideology doesn't reflect the person governing. It's not my fault, nor is it yours that those two leaders were too stupid to realize what they were doing was wrong. Talking ideology wise, Stalin's beliefs were a lot better than Hitler's. I'm not going to sit here and argue about two political figures.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Where is it going? I am simply explaining that your idea of giant Govt and elites choosing lawmakers has been tried in the past - with DISASTEROUS consequences. Yea... its not OUR fault they did what they did, but it wasn't their's either. It was the system's fault, which gave them limitless power to abuse, as is ALWAYS the case when the government becomes too big too control. As for Stalin being "better"... the 10 million Ukrainians who died of starvation would likely disagree.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification the 15 million Jews who died under Hitler's reign of terror would also disagree. Secondly, you say the system is at fault with giving unlimited power and larger government, however without a large government, you can't govern. The larger the government, the stronger it becomes, and with that comes the ability to enforce whatever you're trying to enforce more efficiently.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Efficient? You have got to be kidding. Govt is probably the most inefficient institution around. The private sector can do many things govt can do, and at a fraction of the cost. Compare Amtrak to private rail, the post office to fedex, and private health insurance to the Massacheusets debacle. And yes, it does make it harder to govern when its size is smaller. Thats the point! It prevents the body from getting to powerful and acting in its own interests like mugabee in Zimbabwae.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification too bad little government can cause more problems since it is harder to enforce certain issues. Secondly, Amtrak works way better since it ends up getting government subsidies unlike trains in the private sector which don't even run the entire nation.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld You keep on saying small govt causes more problems, but haven't given a single example where that's true, even though I've given tons (both current, historical, local and international) of why its not. As for Amtrak, Yes thats right. Private companies don't own the infrastructure to deliver that sort of network everwhere now. What I'm saying is, if Amtrak is privatised, the running costs would be significantly less as there's incentive to reduce it, resulting in cheaper fares.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification If Amtrak was privatized, it wouldn't be able to run as successfully and would have higher fares so that it could run successfully. Example of small government being bad, remember that the government and taxes are responsible for more than social security, e.g. Road Building, Law Enforcement, Defense, Health (in most countries), Disability allowance, Subsidies for essential
industries, e.g. farming, transport , Diplomacy, Regulation of industry
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld If it were privatised, the first thing that would happen is management would seek to cut out all the waste weighing the business down. Once other companies come into the market, the business becomes more efficient and prices drop to compete. Just imagine how much waste would be involved if govt were in the business of making cars or other consumer products. Not only will prices soar, the technology will be years behind because there's nothing driving development (cont. next post)
megarockification 11 months ago
@starwarsworld As for those things U've described, I partially agree. But they are not the markings of big govt... they are basic services provided by all govts. I'm not an anarchist. Of course the govt must exist and do its job, but it should NOT do things that can be done by the private sector, and it should not impose on the free market (such as with agricultural subsidies and protectionism).
P.S. for defence, I'm kinda surprised u mentioned it... I thought liberals hated the military =P
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification we don't hate the military, goes to show how narrow-minded conservatives can be. We wait random warfare (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...) Secondly, the gov't gives agricultural subsidies because some years, crops don't grow well and we need to give these farmers money though, or else they'll just quit and go work in an office. (The crops don't grow because of lack of water, overpopulation causing more demand, and because rising global temperatures cause the crops to burn)
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Afghanistan's random warfare?! u've got to be kidding! Need I remind u of something called 9/11? But I suppose the blood of 3000 americans spilled in NYC at the hands of radical muslim jihadists isn't enough to justify action by you far lefters.
As for farming subsidies, all it does is skew the free market mechanism. Transfering money to richer farmers with big lobbyists (ignoring the smaller farms), to produce something that isn't even efficient. Not to mention taxpayer cost!
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification The money goes to small farms if you didn't know. We stand against big business, and love big government to aid everyone including the small farmers. Second, Afghanistan should've been a done deal with ridding the world of Bin laden during Clinton's presidency. We were close, Bush told the CIA to lay off the Bin Ladens when he first entered, THEN GUESS WHAT HAPPENED? So now we're hunting him again, and who knows if he's still alive or not. All those tapes could be hoaxes.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Thats not true, especially in Iowa. While some small farmers get subsidies, a large proportion go towards the bigger corn farmers who end up putting the smaller farmers out of business. That's what happens when govt sticks its tentacles where they don't belong. And exactly! Clinton should have gotten rid of osama years ago, but didn't because he was too busy with Monica. Now we're left with a mess... America was attacked, and there has to be a strong response against the radicals.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification Oh yeah sure bring Monica into this. Let's all go around complaining about a personal thing that Bill Clinton had that didn't get in the way of how his presidency carried out. His impeachment trial shouldn't even have occurred, and now that's all dumb asses like you remember him for. Also, capitalism is what causes small farms to get fucked over, competition automatically allows the larger farms to win. Secondly, Clinton was closer than Bush, at least he didn't say to lay off!
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld "How does competition cause big farmers to win"? It forces them to bring cost down, and gives smaller players a foot in the industry. As for capitalism hurting farmers - compare those in Cuba and venezuela to that of the United States and I think you'd find the opposite is true! And yes, that bimbo did affect clintons presidency. He was going to launch airstrikes to take osama out, but changed his mind when the story broke, thinking ppl would believe he's trying to distract them.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification This thing about him launching air strikes is most likely not true, because he wouldn't tell anyone "oh, about the air strikes I was going to launch, I thought it would be a distraction so I decided not to." Secondly, capitalism used to work as a system until large corporations came in and started to take over. Thirdly, I bet you're a birther, and lastly, I bet that you're siding with Walmart on this supreme court ordeal instead of the females in our society.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld firstly, here's an article from ur own left-wing "news" network that proves my point: /id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/ (add this at the end of msnbc url)
Secondly, those big and small businesses you despise are the ones providing 95% of the jobs (assuming ur not too busy leeching off taxpayers to find work), and big corporations have always existed throughout history; Thirdly, am I to take the fact ur resorting to name calling as an admition your running out of facts to argue with?
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification if you read the whole article, it said that they wanted to capture him alive which reduced the chance of getting at him. Second, Clinton didn't want to launch a war against Al-Qaeda. Thirdly, this proves against your first comment you ever made that I commented against (MSNBC has "reporters") Well, guess what, we're not left-wing biased, because we attack our own side unlike Fox that loves the right and attacks the left everyday. And where did I call you a "name?"
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld u called me a birther and implied I hate women - 2 things u have absolutely no basis to suggest. It's like me calling you an antisemite without proof. Secondly, the reason ur "reporters" are attacking Dems is because they arn't driven by party - its ideology. Thats why they were so biased against Hillary in 2008. Obama reflected their more radical views. Thirdly, the article completely contradicts your claim that Clinton almost got Osama while bush "let him go". That was my point.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification well, maybe you should read Colin Powell's book about Bush telling his administration to lay off the Bin Ladens. Secondly, I didn't call you a birther, I said I would bet upon it that you would be a birther. I never said you hated women, I said you would probably side with Walmart since you would love to help out these large corporations, that is your ideology isn't it?
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld As a matter of fact, it isn't. What on Earth does believing in personal responsibility and limited government control have to do with a sex-discrimination case and nutjobs who claim Obama is a foreigner? Like most liberals, you obviously can't seem to agrue on the facts so you have to try and link your oponents to the fringe. As for Colin Powell, that is absolute rubbish. He never said that and you know it. If it were, we would have never gone into afghanistan in the first place.
megarockification 11 months ago
@megarockification This was prior to us going to Afghanistan. Bush told them to stop the hunt for Bin Laden before 9/11 happened. And secondly, I'm not name-calling, plus you're the one fighting against fact. Hitler and Stalin being the same kind of people is completely against any real fact. If you read biographies of both men during their leadership, they did things differently to their country, people, and their administration. That is fact for you.
starwarsworld 11 months ago
@starwarsworld Again, thats not true. The US had CIA operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout 2001, with the purpose of limiting Alkhida's influence. After 9/11, the objective became to destroy them. As for Hitler and Stalin... YOUR RIGHT! They are different people and did different things (Hitler prefered gasing, Stalin prefered starvation). They both, however, had one common feature - a gigantic government behind them that they used to suppress their people and increase their power.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification Hitler had limited government, in fascism, the government is limited to one leader, therefore, the government doesn't exist. Two, spell Al Qaeda right, three spell gassing right, and four. Bill Clinton launched missiles at them and it didn't work. I think Clinton was smart for not starting a gigantic ground invasion when nothing had happened yet. The missiles did act as preemptive strikes though. Watch History Channel's Ten Ways to Kill Bin Laden, you'll learn something.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld For you to say that Hitler had no government, and fascism is controlled by one person, makes me think that you don't watch the history channel (let alone read!). Hitler had one of the largest beaurocracies behind him - a well documented fact. Even the most closed minded left wing hack will admit that. And what exactly is your point about Clinton? I don't seem to recall Bush launching a ground offensive until after american blood was spilled on the streets of New York.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification yeah well you're sitting around criticizing my man Clinton for not doing anything. He tried, and it didn't work, no blood was spilled, as you previously said, so he didn't send in ground troops. I agree with sending in ground troops when the blood was spilled, but you're attacking Clinton for making a good decision........ Second, although he had a bureaucratic government, guess who solely controlled it?
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld So now u say u agree with the war in Afghanistan? Just a few posts back, u called it "random warfare". But don't worry... as much as I'd love to critisise u for flip flopping, I'm actually going to congratulate u on seeing the light. Kudos to ya!
As for Hitler, he wasn't solely in control. He had a lot of operatives around him. But thats not the issue. The fact is, it is a large govt that allowed him to get that powerful, and it is a large govt u are advocating. Connect the dots.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification ok without large government, people would get more powerful connect the dots with that. And second I don't criticize the war in Afghanistan, I criticize the way that they run things there and how we aren't accomplishing anything. We're trying to help people fight against the Taliban by creating trust. However, when the Florida pastor burned a Quoran last week, Afghanistan attacked the UN building there. This shows that we need to strengthen our strategy of gaining trust.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Yes, individuals get more power and freedom to take control and responsibility of their own lives. So what exactly is wrong with that?
And yes, the Afghanistan war is being executed poorly. The American military not using enough force in fighting off the Taliban, letting them push the war towards stalemate. The embassy attacks is a classic example of how control is being lost, and until control is re-gained, they will never trust us. Nice to see us agree on at least something!
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification if there is one thing we can agree on, it has to be anything dealing with our dissatisfaction towards anything that is run inefficiently as seen above through all our rantings on any sorts of inefficiencies we can find. Haha.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Haha. I have no idea what that means, but it sounds good =)
I suppose we should just agree on the fact that you and I disagree on just about everything. Although I've got to admit, Its been a fun month and a half of debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as me =D
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification I did enjoy it, but I have to admit that I was wondering when it would end. Haha hey at least we're at compromise unlike the negotiations for a budgeting and spending plan going on in Congress which I'm mad about at both sides all partisan politics aside, I want them to come to agreement and move on with this mess.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Yea thats true. The partisan bickering over $30b, which is basically pocket money, is disgraceful. The Dems are being too obstuctionist, and the Repubs are grandstanding over nothing. If they can't agree on this, what hope is there for next year when $6 trillion is on the table.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification The 6 trillion is really the thing that I fear.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Yeah me too. To cut that much you've got to rip a lot out of the budget. But thats what happens when congress and the white house spend like drunken sailors, and now risk defaulting. We have bush and obama to thank for that.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification I think the fact remains, that we won't fix this crisis for a while. We need another FDR to come in and get us out. He fixed a depression, and we need someone that can actually fix the recession. I actually think now's the time in American history where we just have to pick the person who can actually get us out of a mess, and partisan politics aside, Obama isn't doing too well, at least not compared to what FDR had to put up with (which should be much worse)
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld To be honest, it wasn't FDR who fixed the depression alone (though his policies helped). As callous as it sounds, it was actually WWII. As the threat posed by Hitler grew, many US allies, like the Brits, started stockpiling weapons, most of which were bought from the US. As a result, the munitions industry boomed, and it impacted the whole economy. The best way to fix our current recession, however, is to strengthen the dollar by reducing inflation - stability is key to recovery.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification yeah the war surprisingly did help the country economically, unlike now
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Well usually the economic benefit occurs at the begining. After a while, it becomes a massive drain because of the cost. Economically, even Iraq gave it a slight boost in the beginning, but that was before the multi-trillion dollar cost was realised (much of which had to be borrowed). Very quickly, it became a negative.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification I guess you can say, war has a negative effect on everyone even on the winning side.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@starwarsworld Economically, absolutely. Which is why I don't understand it when people say Iraq and Afghanistan are all about oil and wealth. The amount spent would far far far exceed any possible benefit.
megarockification 10 months ago
@megarockification Iraq is about oil and wealth. Afghanistan is about finding and capturing Bin Laden AND securing ties with the Afghan people to fight the Taliban forces. However, pretty soon we will be in Afghanistan....... For their giant surplus of underground lithium.
starwarsworld 10 months ago
@megarockification DUDE WE KILLED BIN LADEN!!!!!!!!! OUR BICKERING HAS COME TO CLOSURE..... MR. OBAMA DID GOOD!!!!!!!!!!
starwarsworld 9 months ago
@starwarsworld Yeah! FINALLY some good news this year! For once, Obama made a really good judgement call.
Its a pity Bin Laden didn't surrender though... I would have been much happier to see him waterboarded in gitmo with some STD-infected urine after what he did. But hey, his body being fed to the sharks sounds good as well =)
megarockification 9 months ago
@starwarsworld
That was on a much more massive scale though. Federal government spending went from under 10% of total GDP prior to the war starting to a whopping 52% of total GDP in 1945. 42% of that spending in 1945 was on defense.
To put those numbers in perspective the federal government today spends less than 20% of total GDP with only 6% of that on defense.
Our industrial might was unparalleled and mobilized to full capacity for the war. That means lots of economic stimulus and jobs.
redwingsmike3718 9 months ago
@redwingsmike3718 Well you can't really compare the situation of wwII to the present when it comes to spending, mainly because the factors were very different. 52% of GDP reflected a desperate life-or-death situation in a war that could have been lost. Workers were forced to leave their jobs and work in munitions. That is not the case today. Given we are in peace time, the fact the Govt still spends 20% of GDP is outragous. And its all going to entitlement programs that didn't exist back then.
megarockification 9 months ago
@megarockification
You do realize I was responding to another comment on World War II helping the economy as opposed to the current wars, right? I'm not arguing for government spending. I said the reason why it helped the economy back in the 1940s is because the sheer scale of our spending.
In other words, you and I are in agreement but your reading comprehension needs work.
redwingsmike3718 8 months ago
Yeah ok dude - this is about the music only - try digg for your whining
pentakle0522 1 year ago 4
This theme is awesome - the new one SUCKS HUGE - take note NBC!!
pentakle0522 1 year ago 3
Nah they didn't use it, cause the Dems were going to lose big time, so they had a less enthusiastic tune! :P
bbc1531 1 year ago
They're not using this theme tonight!
korogaru213 1 year ago
nbc is for homoz =-0
christopherxeno 1 year ago
Two words whenever this song comes up: Rachel Maddow.
FullMentalPanic 1 year ago 23
mmm supper.....
hari812102 1 year ago 2
Love it! NBC definitely ROCKS! :D
pilipinasmabuhay100 1 year ago 3
regardless of their political views, this is by far the best election theme from any news network
grapesofwraith1066 1 year ago 3
@grapesofwraith1066 agreed
pkamler 1 year ago
nobody can touch this music. so awesome.
tayloroux 1 year ago 2
Can't stand the channel (except for Lockup) but the music is great!
torquemada3599 1 year ago
@torquemada3599 I love their weekend documentaries except their Lockup marathon LOL
pocelrat 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
MSNBC is the most far left news channel. It has Ed, Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow. It is the worst news channel out there and no one should watch it because they give you false, leftist information.
ekoppisch 1 year ago
This theme is great, but it doesn't delay the fact that they are the most biased cable news network around.
BTW, FOX News isn't THAT conservative, it just reports on politics more than anything else.
DoverBroadcasting 1 year ago
@DoverBroadcasting Fox News isn't THAT conservative? Their marquee names are Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. This is like me forming a network anchored by Bret Michaels, Sammy Hagar, and David Lee Roth and saying that it "isn't THAT 80s hair-band".
seventypercent 1 year ago 2
@seventypercent Um, last time I checked, NBC had Olbermann, Matthews, and Maddow. Not THAT liberal?
DoverBroadcasting 1 year ago
@DoverBroadcasting Oh, I don't disagree at all that MSNBC is a liberal network. Of course it's liberal. I just think it's somewhat odd to claim that Fox "isn't THAT conservative" when their headliners are a veritable who's-who of far right personalities.
seventypercent 1 year ago
@seventypercent I think we can all agree that ALL media personnel have a bias one way or another; the trick is can I get more than one viewpoint on any of these networks? Fox does the best job of at least getting two sides of any argument (This doesn't include their "opinion" programs of course) followed by CNN. MSNBC has clearly given up trying.
pkamler 1 year ago
@DoverBroadcasting name a liberal that has a show on fox. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough and Dylan Ratigan. They may not be crazies like most on fox, but they are definitely conservative, and aren't afraid to say what they think. fox is more biased than MSNBC from what I can see.
smsteve888 1 year ago
I really love this tune, I can' wait til November!
turretone 1 year ago
@turretone this music is only good when democrats pwn :-)
hope they keep this 4 evvvvrrrrr
BLHNOR 1 year ago
This is another reason why MSNBC pwns the other stations, even though I love CNN too. Maddow, Hall, Olbermann, Shuster, the Morning Joe crew...all of them. I love them.
jjlucash 1 year ago
Everytime I hear this now, I'll always think of Rachel Maddow. She is hilarious when she hears this considering it's her favorite!!!
bubblinbrownsugar616 1 year ago 2
@nextstep333 The theme is so powerful and stirring that it is unfair for synthesizers to have a hand in it. I want to hear it from a full symphony orchestra! Can you arrange that, NBC? Please?
AngelBearOH 1 year ago 3
This sounds ... superheroic!
AngelBearOH 1 year ago 7
@AngelBearOH This theme reminds me about the good and just
nextstep333 1 year ago 3
Hey do you have any of the new MSNBC music? Thanks!
MrWeatherman15 1 year ago 3
bush you mean nextstep333
Articuno1234567890 1 year ago
Hey does anybody know where I can find any of the new MSNBC news music? Thanks!
MrWeatherman15 1 year ago
I wonder if they are going to use this in this years midterm elections?
lodi22 1 year ago
I have a question. Why are people having a political debate when the video posted is just the theme music of the elections? I dont know...maybe I'm missing something...
sklrjkt 2 years ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
We love George W. Bush!
cspencer2001 2 years ago
Who's the "we?" No, we DON'T -- we despise the lying sack of sh*t!
marcostar57 2 years ago 4
Lol. Look at all the thumbs down you got for saying that... It was just funny. People take things to seriously.
Spockkid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In Spain we still remember how the U.S. supported the dictatorship of General Franco. Panama also remember how a CIA agent became the President of that country, and how the country was invaded in response to disobey Washington orders. Spain, Cuba, Chile, Panama, Pakistan... U.S. is characterized by supporting their business interests. They never have supported freedom or democracy, except in the Second World War (and I still have some doubts).
Emmets 2 years ago
Emmets -- as you likely know most of my fellow Americans are ignorant of the actions done around the world by our military and political leaders in our name -- or just deny the truth when confronted by the facts. But your comments are correct, of course...
marcostar57 2 years ago
Hmm....sometimes global politics isn't that simple!
TomSanderson100 2 years ago
As a Canadian I can say American can be war-like in some way, I wish the best for our Neighbours in the south!
nextstep333 2 years ago
@nextstep333 Thank you from America!
KaiUchiha15 2 years ago
i have to ask....are you guys laughing your balls off at how much of a fight some are putting up to defeat basic health care rights? I only ask because as an American i sometimes wonder how we can be this backwards even today... :(
even though it passed i am stupified that it even was a fight....i mean its basic health care!!!! how can you be against it...sorry rant over :)
johnkerry7 1 year ago
@johnkerry7 Could not agree more,
sistalinda 1 year ago
Why does it sound like something out of a Disney movie?
plazmatical1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I vote for BBC opening theme
shiratoridai 2 years ago
shiratoridai, the BBC Election Theme is great, though MSNBC's IMHO just kicks ass!
1prouddemocrat 2 years ago 3
The only thing I like about Ron Paul is his non-interventionist foreign policy. Other than that, I don't share his libertarian views.
In essence Ron Paul is not mainstream Republican, he's a libertarian. Joe Lieberman is and always will be a Democrat. Although he supports the war in Iraq and supported McCain in the election, he's still a Democrat and these days he's back to his usual self...
korogaru213 2 years ago
How can you seriously maintain a non-interventionist foreign policy as the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world? So you would just let people die if the government of a nation was committing genocide against its own citizens?
LAX324 2 years ago
Are we doing anything in Sudan right now? From what I can tell, we're letting the genocide in Darfur go on... Listen, I agree with you that as the sole superpower, we have certain responsibilities, but if we keep sticking our nose into everyone's business, we'll be inviting more hatred and disdain. I'm not proposing, isolationism, I'm just saying that we shouldn't do things unilaterally and act like international law doesn't apply to us.
korogaru213 2 years ago
But we should be doing something in Sudan. I agree we shouldn't act unilaterally, international law does apply and we should act with the approval of the UN or at least within the confines of it, but what we can't do is let massive amounts of people die. It's immoral and frankly turning a blind eye leads to more chaos than anything. If you are getting at whether I think Iraq was ok then no. We acted alone, we didn't have approval from the UN and there was no serious human rights issues.
LAX324 2 years ago
After Obama finishes his 1st term in office, I just hope the republican party has an idea that Obama is NOT a failure when it comes to changing america!!! I am a Independent voter (Who voted for a democrat)
When Bush was in office, he just messed everything up... The economy was shattered, broken, and oh yeah he invaded Iraq!!! So he wasn't a good president... His #2 (Dick Cheney) kept moving his mouth blaming obama!!!
The republican Party is totally messed up!
Democrats with 60 seats!
eastern89 2 years ago 3
i wonder if msnbc will still use this in the 2012 election?
gosuns08 2 years ago 8
I hope so
MrChaz93 2 years ago 2