Gibson Rips Keith Olbermann's Constitution Comments!

[EndTheFedRes]

Lincoln was FAR from the benevolent slave loving man he was portrayed to be. Lincoln was not only a racist, but a bit ethnocentric. He was also a dictator. I encourage all of you to google "Lincoln racist quotes"

Lincoln was a DOUCHE!!! The Civil War was not started over slavery.

[MerlinsJester]

Why is it that on every anti-Olby vid there has to be at least half a dozen spammed hate comments from his lib fans?

Oh right- because Keith can't open his mouth without saying something vile, so his fans do it, too.

Jebus, you Olbytards are dedicated little bastards, aren't you?

[jhc1971]

@MatthewPalumbo 478 kinds of THIS!

[icelove871]

@MatthewPalumbo The progressives freed the slaves, you fucking twat.

[jrc99us]

If that's the case then Uberdouche is also claiming that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass wanted slavery as well?

Another reason why Uberdouche was canned.

[salt27dogg]

Bye bye Olbermann. You are out. Your show is over. Bye bye asshole.

[youzentubeable]

@salt27dogg=KEITH HAS MILLIONS WHILE YOU LIVE IN YOUR BASEMENT

[Sweepersucksballs]

JOHN GIBSON=OLBYWATCH'S BOYFREIND

[Sweepersucksballs]

JOHN GIBSON CANT OWN NOBODY NOT EVEN HIS DOG!

[woostopalypse]

@MatthewPalumbo Indeed. The republicans used to be fairly liberal. Whatever happened to liberal republicans?

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: Are you saying Sen. "Sheets" Byrd, then-Senator LBJ and Al Gore Sr. were "conservative" when they filibustered the Civil Rights Act?

[woostopalypse]

@UTubekookdetector Yeah I am. Lets not pretend that the civil rights act wasn't a liberal law. Those campaigning for it were liberal activists. Just as those who were campaigning against slavery were liberal activists. Conservatives support the status quo.

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: Your modus operandi is to simply categorize any civil rights movement as "liberal" and if any Democrat or liberal filibusters it (as they did) you simply switch labels. Pretty silly. In fact, a lot of Southern Dems weren't bending over backwards to pass the Civil Rights Act. Of course, your "status quo" statement also contains moving goalposts. Am I a "racist" for saying Social Security at the federal level is unconstitutional?

[woostopalypse]

@UTubekookdetector I have never been a democrat. I am well aware that the democrats used to be majority in the south and most of them were indeed conservatives. Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean you are automatically a liberal. There are many democrats today who i believe are more conservative than liberal. I judge politicians based on their policies.

No. I wouldn't say you are a racist. But the constitution does mention that society should care for welfare of society.

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: They're so conservative and so much for limited gov't that they voted for Social Sec. & Medicare? That's worth a hearty guffaw. Do you think the Blue Dogs are "conservative"? Be careful with your answer. Your response concerning Social Sec. doesn't work. Even James Madison himself dealt with this about 216 years ago, you can't use the "general welfare" clause & there is no provision in the Const. that allows the federal gov't to dole out "objects of benevolence" with someone else's money

[woostopalypse]

@UTubekookdetector section 8 of the constitution:" The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "

yeah. the government can do that. It's called taxes for the "general welfare". You must have not read that clause.

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. With respect to the two words 'general? welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: That was James Madison, in case the answer escapes you. So, you can't use an ambiguous phrase to justify taking 6.2% of my money to pay off Grandpa. That's not equal protection and it's certainly not for post roads or the military.

[woostopalypse]

@UTubekookdetector How is ensuring the elderly a safe retirement not "general welfare?" I just looked up the definition of welfare: 'something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the benefit of all"' Yeah, social security fits that definition.

[misterkennedy1]

@woostopalypse PLEASE GIBSON IS A DOUCHEBAG WHY DOSENT HE CALL OUT DICK CHENEY'S UNCONSTITIONAL IRAQ WAR.

[UTubekookdetector]

WOOS: No comment on Madison's views concerning doling out tax $ for "objects of benevolence" or misuses of the "general welfare" clause? If the general welfare clause is a "catch-all" then the Enumerated Powers of Article I Section VIII are irrelevant and contradictory. You don't even understand Social Security. The $ I put in aren't being saved for me, they're going to grandpa, it's not even run as it's intended, it's a Ponzi Scheme. If it were run as intended, I should be able to opt-out now.

[mr300ism]

OH AND AT LEAST KEITH DOSENT SLAM A DEAD PERSON AFTER HIS DEATH LIKE JOHN BULLY GIBSON DID TO HEATH LEDGER.

[itachi705]

@woostopalypse

"Whatever happened to liberal republicans?"

Most republicans consider themselves "classical liberals."

[woostopalypse]

@MatthewPalumbo Yeah. The republicans used to be liberal. Whatever happened to liberal republicans?

[YOURINQUIRER]

Instead of calling this channel "olbywatch", isn't this pretty much the "John Gibson" channel?

Gibson really seems to have a lot of issues with Olbermann.

I don't think Olbermann has a "gibbywatch" channel.

[MaryJesusJoseph]

Gibson's a total idiot.

[clash360]

@MaryJesusJoseph Have a point when you leave a comment.

[cliffyknight]

@MatthewPalumbo I wish more people knew that.

[wiz9496]

Gibson vs. Olbermann!!! Thumbs up for a grudge match?

[zatoichi1969]

@wiz9496 I must have really gotten under your skin huh asshole. you are evenb looking at my favorites. Your favorites is a reseme for a RACIST. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How is your dead mom? still DEAD. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :)

[infoexcavator]

Republicans want to destroy and rape the constitution by removing the fourteenth amendment.

[UGLYSTIKCOLIN]

@infoexcavator Which we should. Had the founding fathers known that the 14th amendment would be a leftist scam, used to get illegal aliens citizenship, they would've never allowed of it.

And so it should be eliminated.

[RichieEastside]

@UGLYSTIKCOLIN The idea of "illegal immigration" would have been entirely foreign to the founding fathers. If anything they would have welcomed anybody over the border and did. The country was founded to be a safe haven for people who were cast-offs from their respective societies. Immigration laws as we have them now did not come into being until much much much later.

[lexilicious74]

@infoexcavator No one is trying to remove the 14th; only to close the "anchor-baby" loophole. It's the 17th Amendment which was a power-grab by the Federal Government intended to weaken the 10th and, to a lesser degree, the 9th Amendments that right-thinking people want to repeal.

[CDubSD]

@infoexcavator: Have you read the 14th Amendment? The original intent of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was that simple birth on US soil did not automatically make you a citizen. Other factors were to play in. The conservative simply want to avoid the downfalls of illegal immigration by overruling the "anchor baby" case.

[LordAtrocities]

@MatthewPalumbo - Nobody on the left or in the category of "African American" cares to know the truth behind that clause. They're just as deliberately ignorant of the constitution as bath tub boy. Why find out anything for yourself when you have idiots like Bathtub Boy and the left wing loons to tell you what you should know. Oh never mind the fact that what they are telling you is about as truthful as the sky is pink. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie" - Saul David Alinsky

[cliffyknight]

@LordAtrocities Well put man.

[LordAtrocities]

They censored the Constitution. They dropped two parts from it when they read it because they were afraid it would "offend" some people. By "some people" they mean black Americans and douche bag liberals who don't know shit about the constitution and the meaning behind the material that was omitted. Sad day for all of America.

[bsabruzzo]

You have to wonder a couple of things:

1) If the US Const. is racist, as the "left" claims, why do they swear an oath to uphold and defend it?

2) If they swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Const. from ALL enemies, foriegn AND domestic, why aren't there more hearings against the MofCs who say they "don't care if a law they pass is unconstitutional"?

3) Reading the US Const. first thing guarentees the MofCs who violate their oath can't say "I didn't know", so why be against reading it?

[LordAtrocities]

@bsabruzzo - We have a word for people like you, its RETARD! Nuff said.

[bsabruzzo]

@LordAtrocities "We have a word for people like you, its RETARD! Nuff said.

"

Actually, because the term "retarded" can mean a number of things, from "held back in an area" to "having a low IQ", you'll have to say more, including using specifics to support your ASSumption.

Is your criteria spelling and grammar?

Is it the simple logic of my comment?

Is it just your an ASS, ASSuming something you have no evidence of?

Or is it you just don't like to think about things in the abstract?

[LordAtrocities]

@bsabruzzo You have put way way too much thought into your response. Its just youtube.

[bsabruzzo]

@LordAtrocities I put "too much thought" into everything, my friend. That's just how my mind works... thought thought thought.

Besides, you are correct, it is just YouTube. Here is one place where we share our thoughts in an open debate.

[bsabruzzo]

@LordAtrocities Interestingly, it looks like I might even be on the same "side" as you.

It looks a lot like premature ASSumption.

[wowKrazy]

I know I didn't hear Pelosi reading the constitution....

[lordhighexecutioner]

Bush said it is a "goddamned piece of paper".

[unclebobshow]

Way to give to Bathtub Boy, John! Gibson rules.

[xxashyy]

It's one thing for the far left to say the Republican congress read the Constitution as a "gimmick". But another thing to say the Constitution means nothing because it's a hundred years old. Thanks democrats for revealing you're true feelings about our founding document.

[klrdotorg]

God, the libs go berserk when they feel they're being made to look bad.

When Bush was in office - the libs cried that he was wiping his ass with the Constitution. Now the libs want to point out how "flawed" the Constitution is, and how the Founding Fathers were racists. It's strange, pathetic, and desperate. They'll attack anyone to (try to) make their enemies look bad.

Oh, and fuck you Olby.

[Mauhadeeb28]

The reading is for show and nothing more. Publicity stunt is a good word. Republicans nor Democrats give a crap about it.

[avataz]

It's scary how much the left hates the Constitution

[cliffyknight]

@avataz Its the biggest thing in their way of total control.

[RichieEastside]

@avataz You're aware the Constitution includes the right of the people to destroy it and start over right? It was never meant to be the be all end all of our country's government. It leaves more than enough room to improvise. If you think that nothing has changed in the last 250 years and that even our founding fathers wouldn't take a second look at it today under our current circumstances then you're crazy.

[CDubSD]

@RichieEastside: You're aware that America's prosperity in this world is due to the Constitution and its framers. Only when we deviate from the fundamentals of the Constitution does America seem to have problems. It isn't the Constitution that is causing this economic crisis, it's government taking more power than awarded to it by the Constitution. It legitimately is the greatest written document of modern times and history will prove this.

[RichieEastside]

@CDubSD I'm not denying that it's any of those things, I'm simply saying that it retains in and of itself the right to revise it and change it as circumstances arise. If you're going to tell me that the Constitution today should read exactly the same way it did as in 1788 then I think you're just hiding behind it to avoid real discussion and facing real issues. It's much easier to just say "I believe whatever the Constitution says because it's the infallible word of god", isn't it?

[CDubSD]

@RichieEastside: It is true that the Constitution allows itself to be revised/changed but there is a reason why it is extremely difficult to amend. I don't think that everything in the Constitution should be read exactly the same way but MOST of it should be read by the framer's intent. Newly developed interpretations of the Constitution can be an unconstitutional manner in revising the document itself. It isn't infallible but to change the Constitution must come in the form of an amendment.

[RichieEastside]

@CDubSD Or the repealing of an existing amendment, all of which is predicated on the country's best interest at the time. If in twenty years we decide that it was a mistake we can change it back, that's the beauty of our Constitution, not that it's some document that should be set in stone and obeyed exactly the way it was written when times were nothing even remotely close to what they are now. People who interpret it that way block progress.

[CDubSD]

@RichieEastside: Relegating the decision of changing the constitution by predicating it on the "country's best interest at the time" is a slippery slope. "Progress" doesn't mean what it used to. The Obama Administration's health care law, as originally designed, was unconstitutional. Single Payer healthcare is unconstitutional (at least there is a very strong argument for it). Despite the need for a healthcare overhaul, there is no need to amend the constitution to accomplish this.

[RichieEastside]

@CDubSD Who said anything about healthcare? I'm just talking about the way the Constitution works in general. I don't think Obama's health care plan is unconstitutional per se, I just think it's the wrong time to bring it up. The country is in debt up to its forehead and he wants to start talking about gigantically expensive healthcare reform NOW?

But on a Constitutional level, I don't find any fault with Obamacare.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: Can the federal gov't require me to eat vegetables every day? Can the federal gov't make me drink 2% milk instead of skim milk?

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector What does that have to do with anything?

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: You suggested that there were no constitutional problems with ObamaCare & I asked you if the federal gov't can force me to eat vegetables & I asked if they can take away my skim milk and make me drink 2%. So, can they do that or not? Yes or no and why?

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector It would depend on the circumstances, everything has to be taken in context. Give me a reasonably hypothetical situation under which the government would want to take them away and I'll give you my opinion.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: You seem apprehensive to answer the question as to whether Congress can make a law requiring me to drink 2% milk instead of skim and eat my vegetables. Your insertion of the word "reasonably" indicates to me that you're going to erect moving goalposts. So, does Congress have this power? Yes or no and why. Most of the Const. doesn't depend on circumstances (there are certain exceptions in wartime), it's as clear as a bell.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector Well you're trying to get to me to say "Yes, the government should have the absolute power to take away your milk and force vegetables upon you for any reason they see fit." and I just don't believe that. If you would give me something more to work with, a situation to see why they'd even be talking about it, then I could give you a better answer.

The constitution most certainly depends on circumstances that's why we have the power to change it.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: It seems youre saying sans amending the Const. the gov't doesn't have the authority to penalize me or anyone else for NOT purchasing health insurance or health insurance the gov't deems "adequate." The dozens of occurences of "the Secretary (Sebelius) shall determine" are also unconstitutional because only Congress can make law. If they can't order me to eat vegetables or penalize me for not eating said vegetables then they can't do that with health care either.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector What is your obsession with healthcare? My comments were about the nature of the Constitution and our right to amend it. I really don't care about the healthcare legislation because it's a non-issue. You can spout off about it being unconstitutional all day long but it's not going to change because they're just going to push it through anyway. Aside from having the right to amend the constitution, we also have the right to vote, which is a lot more practical.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: You seem quite frustrated. You said earlier on this threat that you found no constitutional problems with ObamaCare & your refusal/avoidance (as well as your insertion of the word "reasonable" to erect moving goalposts) to answer my question as to whether the federal gov't can force me to buy 2% milk or eat my vegetables proves your argument is built on sand. Now you're backpedaling, claiming not to care about the health care issue: I accept your concession.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector Allow me to tie the two together for you. I see no problem with Obamacare on a Constitutional level because the Constitution allows us the right to amend it as circumstances come up. If we decide not to make any alterations, that's our right too, which is why I consider it a non-issue constitutionally.

If you somehow see that as a discussion about the government forcing you to drink a certain type of milk then that's your issue and you're free to vote accordingly.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: Not apples-to-apples. Now, you can amend the Constitution, adding an amendment allowing the federal gov't to supply health care to it's citizens--good luck with that. Sans an amendment, the gov't can't force me to buy health care (or a "minimum" amount of health care) or 2% milk or vegetables. The individual mandate will go down in flames. I'd also like to ask you, if only Congress can make law, how come Sebelius is allowed to issue all these regulations--they're still writing the bill.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector Perhaps the idea of adding an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee healthcare is not a popular idea, but you still concede that it can, constitutionally, be done. Thank you. That's all I was saying.

As for the intricacies of it, what Sebelius is doing, etc. I don't know because I haven't researched it that much. I'm neither here nor there on the issue. I was only saying that there really is no such thing as "unconstitutional" because we can change that at will.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: You said some time ago, "on a Constitutional level, I don't find any fault with Obamacare." You were speaking about it as it is now, sans a Constitutional amendment. It doesn't take much research my friend, if Congress is the only entity in this country (according to the Const.) that can make law then Sebelius and the HHS can't, period. Go ahead and try adding an Amendment to the Const. guaranteeing health care, it will get shredded. ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Your reasoning is odd.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector It depends on what you're actually talking about. Sure the administration is probably cutting some corners in how they're going about implementing Obamacare, no doubt. Politicians of all stripes have been doing stuff like that for years. However the Obamacare package in and of itself, I don't think contains anything that the Constitution prohibits. Granted, I don't agree with the timing of it, I don't think we can afford it, but Constitutionally, I think it's alright.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: We're going in circles. We've already covered the "general welfare" clause, what part of the Const. gives the federal gov't the authority to order me to buy health care or 2% milk or vegetables? Deja vu? I think you've thought wrong Rich. I will also reiterate one last time, if only Congress can make law, how come Sebelius is issuing regulations finalizing it? It's still being written!

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector The only reason we're going in circles is because you keep wanting me to say "Yes, the government has every right to force milk and vegetables on you." You're refusing to acknowledge the core of my argument and are trying to get me to talk about an entirely unrelated subject because you're trying to publicly make a point that has nothing to do with what I was talking about in the first place. Go ahead and claim a victory, I'm not giving you anymore of my time.

[UTubekookdetector]

RICH: You're avoiding answering because you know an honest answer will undercut your argument. You're refusing to acknowledge the "general welfare" clause is not a catch-all for every redistribution of income scheme. The gov't can't force you to buy health care, vegetables or milk and they can't tax (penalize) me for non-economic activity. ObamaCare doesn't jive with the Commerce Clause either. The fact that you couldn't give a simple answer proves to everyone you know your argument has failed.

[RichieEastside]

@UTubekookdetector Yep, you're right. Bye now. =)

[CDubSD]

@RichieEastside: I was using the health care overhaul as an example of when people want to change the Constitution (without amending it) because there is some sort of need. There is a need for a revamped health care system, but a public option (meaning single payer in the long term) can very easily be considered unconstitutional. And dropping this disaster of a health care system would save us money. Don't listen to the CBO reports, they're like machines: Crap in Crap out...they use bad stats.

[RichieEastside]

@CDubSD So that's what you meant by the government forcing you to eat vegetables and taking away your skim milk? You lost me, bro.

[mr300ism]

@avataz Who hates the constitution? Oh yeah avataz has amenisia Cheney hates the constitution he invaded iraq and waterboarded people.

[ensurePlus1]

@avataz its scary how much the right pretends to love the constitution, yet lets the republican agenda override any article or section it sees fit.

bush = violated 6 constitutional amendments, on 23 occasions. but it was worded under the guise of patriotism.. so it must have been a good thing, right?

[blortner]

@avataz The Repugnants sure screwed up the reading, leaving parts out and even skipping a page or two. A bunch of fuckups.

[Roachenator]

olbermann is the REAL Golden Voice man