Congressman Brian Baird: Rhetoric Of Protestors Reminiscent Of Tim McVeigh

[apatriotofusa]

This jerk off is using the detontation INSIDE the Murrow Building in OK City (which has been PROVEN to have been perpetrated by THE FBI) to demonize government protestors. YES, the FBI blew up the building in OKC as part of the nationwide terror campaign to introduce Americans to domestic terrorism and set the stage for the advancement of the American Police State. The template was all set when the govt COMMITTED 9/11, and POOF! The Patriot Act appears. This facsist document was already written.

[abukamoon]

How about the violence done to our Constitution by our public servants?

Intimidation? Isn't that like the president deciding he has the authority to assassinate American citizens? Or John McCain's bill or hold American citizens without charges, deprive them of legal counsel and torture?

Why are out politicians so hostile to Constitutional government?

[Lodatzor]

Because corporate America has such a strong and unwavering influence over their careers.

The basic idea runs as follows:

The Poor are not really worth bothering about, so don't bother. The Wealthy are the ones who need to be protected from the ravages of the subhuman Poor, and so government should focus on creating legislation which favors the prosperity of the rich, who will in turn pay handsomely for it. In the meantime, stoke fear and anger in the Middle Class to keep the Poor subdued.

[Lodatzor]

That way the Wealthy can keep on getting richer, the Middle Class feel they're taking their country back from all the blacks/immigrants/socialists/u­nemployed who are supposedly stealing their wealth, and nothing ever changes.

Oh, and it helps to start a few wars here and there to increase the military budget. That way they can preach about reducing government size, without having to actually do it. Instead they just make the government work for the Wealthy.

Sadly, that IS Constitutional.

[Lodatzor]

Contrary to romantic belief, the Framers were all rich, white and very concerned about the will of the majority putting a dent in their personal prosperity. That's the entire reason they convened in Philadelphia to write the darn Constitution -- to create a strong (if not large) government that could control the public interest.

Hell, the only reason we have a Bill of Rights is because the States refused to ratify the document without one! The Framers grudgingly agreed... ;)

[Lodatzor]

However, they still believed that the Federal government should retain the highest power, and so they deliberately drafted the Constitution so as to be able to revoke corporate privileges if they ever got too big for their boots.

This was (illegally) overturned in 1886 by a Supreme Court Clerk slipping a ruling into some trial notes which implied the Court had granted corporations the natural rights of a citizen.

It all went to the skids very quickly. The early 1900s especially were awful.

[Lodatzor]

It took the combined efforts of progressives after the Great Depression to legislate in such a way as to combat and shift power back away from corporations, but these measures brought their own problems. The New Deal did great work in leveling the playing field, but in reigning in corporations eventually those same measures began to harm smaller businesses, and led to stagflation.

This ended with Reagan onwards, and his deregulation and tax cuts which exploded the national debt and deficit.

[Lodatzor]

Then we have Bush Snr, who just did more of the misguided same, and then good ol' Clinton who really did jack shit to help people. How did he balance the budget? Did he cut military spending? Did he reduce government size?

Hell no. He just sold off military technology to anyone who could pay for it, making the US the number one arms dealer in the world. He also cut several public programs which were keeping the Poor and the lower Middle Class afloat in this perilous period of corporatism.

[Lodatzor]

Too concerned with winning votes and reelection, he made no great strides to combat the problems Reagan had created, and then we got the chimp -- Bush Jnr, and we hardly need to cover what HE did.

So you see, unfortunately, our Constitution has never been that awesome to begin with, and US history has pretty much been a wrestling match between the wealthy and the government for control of the public, until they just decided to become each other's best friend and share the privilege.

[Lodatzor]

Apologies for the lengthy reply, but I felt it necessary to provide background in order to answer your question.

Ever since we decided to let our nation be dictated by wealth, it's just been one long effort by the private sector to bypass the law, and escalation of government interference to fight back, steering us ever further from the spirit of our great documents.

Solution? End corporate personhood and thus reduce both the need for large government, and the leverage it provides to the rich.

[abukamoon]

Ask yourself why corporate America has such a strong influence on our politicians. I'll tell you why. Because the American people have allowed the politicians to get involved in health care, education and energy production. That's why they are so expensive. And that's why the health care industry, the education establishment and the big oil companies are doing so well.

The politicians lie to us, and tell us that they are going to save us. The fact is, they work for the special interests.

[abukamoon]

Restrict government to its authorized functions (Article 1, Section 8), and the Free Market will drive prices down.

Imagine is the fast food restaurants were "regulated" by the federal government. A Big Mac would cost $10, and you wouldn't get it YOUR way. When government gets involved in an area unauthorized by the Constitution, politicians are bribed by special interests. The only solution is to restore Constitutional government, and get the politicians out of health care, education & c.

[Lodatzor]

"The politicians lie to us, and tell us that they are going to save us. The fact is, they work for the special interests."

And yet you blame the political system rather than the special interests which so adeptly use it.

As I said, man, government interventionism has increased as a result, called for by the various civil movements of our history. The American people demanded such measures, and the government was forced to act upon their demands to protect their liberty.

That's the difference.

[Lodatzor]

If you want the government to be reduced, to return to Constitutional minimalism, you need to attack the problem which caused it to grow and interfere so much in the first place.

Otherwise you're just perpetuating the cycle.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Did the American people demand the bail outs of the banks and corporations? Did the American people demand NAFTA? Did the American people demand the Departments of Education and Energy? Are the American people demanding Socialized Medicine? Look at Youtube. Look at how congressmen are being screamed at. Most people do not want socialized medicine.

It is our politicians who want to take over health care. It's all aobut control.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon

Bailouts: No, the American people didn't want it/ Sadly, Bush and his cronies did. How did this do anything other than cement my argument?

NAFTA: That was Bush Snr's pet project, and Clinton only signed it after inserting clauses to protect American workers. Note how these examples are all Conservative initiatives... ;)

Dept of Education: Er, yes, yes indeed. It had been pushed for by several movements until Carter agreed.

[Lodatzor]

And as for socialized healthcare... er, yes, the polls showed that 65+% of the nation supported the Public Option bill, until the GoP started telling porky pies about what was in it and Fox News drummed up resistence by pretending it was Communist, Fascist and would kill old people in an evil plot to overthrow the economy and usher in a New World Order!

Democrats should have stuck to their guns and done what the people were asking for. Instead they capitulated.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Bailouts, the people were betrayed by the politicians.

NAFTA, the American workers were betrayed by the politicians.

Department of Education, the National Education lobbyed forthis for decades, npot the American people.

The Departmen of Energy, sold to the American people to restore energy independence. Today, we are more dependent on foreign oil than ever. The winners, the big oil companies.

Our politicians do not respond to OUR wishes. THey take care of the special interests.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

NAFTA was not wanted by Conservatives.  Nor was the Department of Homeland Terrorism, or the Patriot Act. Undeclared wars are not championed by Conservatives. Conservatives want us out of foreign entanglements.

Bush was NO Conservative.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon

Well, you see, it's hard to make that claim when these things were all carried out by conservative politicians. If you are denouncing Bush, then presumably you are denouncing his father and Reagan also?

I certainly denounce Clinton, who is tended to be thought of as a liberal president, but he's the one who cut welfare and unemployment benefits for LEGAL immigrants and sold weapons to every dictator around the globe that could afford them.

[Lodatzor]

"Our politicians do not respond to OUR wishes. THey take care of the special interests."

You're absolutely right, which is why the very idea that we even have a political Left in this country is laughable. Our so called far-left-loons are all Centrists at best, because we've been moving to the Right steadily for over 30 years.

The closer we've gotten to corporate desires, the worse our lot has become. But your solution simply gives them a free rein to do whatever they wish!

[Lodatzor]

If you remove government without first removing the very reason it has had to be grown in the first place, you simply return us to the late 19th and early 20th Century, which was a terrible time.

The root problem is those special interests having ACCESS to government, not the fact that government exists. Remove that, and there is suddenly no need for such over-reaching beurocracy. It can safely be dismantled according to what is needed.

Do it the other way round... we're screwed entirely.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Let's forget the left/right nonsense since nobody can agree on what they mean. And let's clarify exactly what a Conservative is. We have not had a Conservative in the White House in my lifetime, and that includes Reagan and certainly both Bush's.

A true Conservative believes in limited Constitutional government. A Conservative is not a warmonger. A Conservative is not a globalists or internationalist. And a Conservative values the Bill of Rights.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor Yes, I denounce both Bush's, and even Reagan. None of them have worked to restore Constitutional government. None of them have worked to restore honest money. None of them have avoided undeclared wars for profit and control. And none of them support the Bill of Rights.

My idea of a Conservative is Ron Paul.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon: Well, the reason I bring up the Left/Right thing was not as an aside, but to highlight a very peculiar problem with the United States,and one which is part and parcel of the problematic effects we can both identify.

We have shifted ever Rightward since Reagan, surrendering more and more influence and regulation of big business to the desires and wishes of corporate America. And yet the charade of Left vs Right has raged ever stronger in our media. It's far from inconsequencial.

[Lodatzor]

Indeed, it's a very large part of the show. While the Middle Class are set against the Poor, White vs Color, Small Business Owner vs Unemployed, Patriot vs Communist, Real American vs Immigrants.... all these constant little culture wars that rage because we are told that there is such a thing as a Left/Right paradigm in the US... it's all squabbling for leftovers.

In the meantime, the Establishment just gets richer and more powerful, because even our 'Lefties' are now supplicants to the rich.

[Lodatzor]

Now I know that you are aware of this. You would not be a Ron Paul supporter if you were not. ;) But while I am fond of Dr. Paul and find many of his ideas admirable, I cannot wholly agree with his proposed methods.

The reason being: no matter what we do to the government -- reduce it, enlarge it, hinder it -- all we're doing is treating the symptom. The disease will find new ways to manifest itself, as it always has.

All that warmongering happens for a reason. Distraction, and profit.

[Lodatzor]

Hell, dude, they even managed to drum up freaking sympathy for the plight of corporations (you know, those poor, oppressed corporations) not being able to spend enough to influence our elections!

It's all a big smokescreen to keep the people fighting amongst themselves and blaming the government for everything. As though the government actually runs our lives. As though the government sets the cost of our lives. As though the government is responsible for all our troubles.

[Lodatzor]

It keeps most of us, even well meaning and intelligent folks such as yourself still believing in the sanctity of The System. Because, after all, when something goes wrong, we can always blame another country, or our crooked politicians, or the illegal immigrants, or uppity negros, or dirty socialists... all to cover up the cracks in the System.

It's not the System that fails us, no. Never. Because after all, the System is what we all secretly wish we were winning. ;)

[Lodatzor]

So again (and I do realize how waffly I can get!) we percieve the same problems. And I would personally trust a man like Ron Paul to try to solve them earnestly and through a desire for liberty and personal freedom.

But, unless we remove the very ability of wealth to affect and unduly influence our political system, it doesn't matter how we structure it. We'll still have the same problem.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

I have always considered myself a Conservative. The Right, tko me, meant limited government. It did not mean corporations using the power of government to enrich themselves. The political spectrum ran from no government on the extreme rights (anarchy) to total government (Communism) on the left

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Any other rendering of the Left/Right dichotomy realy makes little sense. To me, what is important is the AMOUNT of government. THe more government, the less freedom. And the more government, the more chance of corporations and other special interests using the power of government for their own benefit.

When politicians have little power, when government is limitted, politicians can not sell their power to special interests. GOvernment becomes the source of corporate power.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon:

Yes I agree with you that government becomes the instrument of corporate power, but I do no think it is correct to say that government is the SOURCE of corporate power.

Ask yourself: what is the actual point in even forming a company, or a corporation? It is precisely to pool resources together into a communal whole for the purpose of generating more total wealth than the sum of the corporations individual components could do.

Very smart and practical, business-wise.

[Lodatzor]

And yet, a common irony that is missed is that this is, in itself, a form of socialism. Every single corporation in existence is a mini-socialism, run by an appointed CEO and a board of directors, even though many more people actually own stakes in the company.

Thus the idea that corporatism is anti-socialist is really quite silly, and ignorant of the inner functions of that body. What, then, is in the best interests of such a corporation? How does communal wealth seek to yield greater profits?

[Lodatzor]

Easy: by cornering a part of the market. Corporatism leads, necessarily according to the business model, to monopoly. That is the only way of ensuring that the influence the corporation has on the market is as huge as possible.

So who prevents such a thing? Why do we not see AT&T and Verison merge to become the sole superpower in the field of telecommunications?

Because there's this pesky government sitting there passing laws against monopoly.

[Lodatzor]

The government is the natural rival to such plitocratic ambition. It has the power an authority to legislate in accordance with the desires of the populace. Neither of us are under any illusions that at present government works for big business rather than the American public, but that is simply because they have managed and learned how to game the system. They've learned how to throw cash at the government until it does what they want it to do, for THEIR benefit.

[Lodatzor]

But to forget and ignore that the government itself is the actual watchdog against plutocracy is to err very badly. The government has grown as an effort to keep corporate power, this plutocracy I mention, in check, direcetd by the various demands and movements of the people throughout history. It did not expand and enlarge all by itself.

Thus the root problem is still the same, an is not the US government. It has become a symptom, but is not the disease itself, to use my hackneyed analogy.

[Lodatzor]

If you target the notion of corporatism, or at least the access is has been granted to our system of government, then you automatically reduce the need for government. I'm all for letting the marketplace dictate its own affairs, so long as the efforts to profit by one party do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Without huge corporate influence, there's no need for large government at all, and it WILL shrink naturally once this problem is removed. The Private Sector pays better!

[Lodatzor]

But cut government without attacking the root problem, to me, is utterly foolish. That's like removing the immune system to treat the disease.

All we'd be left with is the dictatorship of ownership, and here's the ting: they already own everything around us. The land, the buildings, the commodities and the currency. Without laws to abide by, they will be able to do what they want, and monopolize all they want, and coerce all they want through the threat of deprivation.

[Lodatzor]

Gone are the days when we could all claim a plot of land as our own, and build our own house with the capital our labor generates. Everything has already been bought, so we're just fighting over the leftovers, all but begging for employment so we can help them get richer.

Dr. Paul himself identifies this same problem, and danger. Again, he believes we should cut government first, which I think is the wrong way round, for the reasons I've given.

[Lodatzor]

The last 35-40 years have not seen a significant reduction in government, but it HAS seen an aggressive trend of deregulation and privatization, with pretty much disastrous results. The more we let the top percentile dictate the marketplace, the worse off we've become.

I know you're not happy with it either, and want to open up the marketplace further. I agree. I just submit that this will not be possible just by reducing government. The driving greed corrupting it will just get a free reign.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

True, a corporation makes it possible to create a business that no individual would be able to put together. There is nothiing wrong with the idea of corporations.

The Founders wrote our Constitution which strictly limits the power of government in an effort to prevent what we see today. When the people allow politicians to get into areas they are not authorized, corruption is the result.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon:

"There is nothing wrong with the idea of corporations. "

I agree with you. But corporations existing is not the sole requirement for corporatism, which is our problem. It is the ability of corporations to influence (and even coerce) the government, via this idea of corporate personhood.

As to the Founders, we-ell, there is gets kinda sticky. The ramers actually met in Philadelphia to form a strong (albeit not large) central government that would protect their interests...

[Lodatzor]

Hehe, don't forget they were all wealthy landowners, and wanted to keep on prospering. Indeed, there was not even such a thing as the Bill of Rights until the States refused to ratify the Constitution without one!

Remember, the only people who could vote back then were white, relatively rich, and of course, male. They did not anticipate such governmental size or problems, because they did not anticipate equal rights for women, the poor and the black man. ;)

[Lodatzor]

But anyways, that's academic.

You're right, they designed a Constitution which would make it hard for anyone to upset the apple cart, as it were. One big way in which they did this, was they considered corporations artificial persons, not deserving of natural rights by the Constitution, but deserving of temporary (and revokable) rights by the government.

That was their safety-net, in case someone got too big for their breeches.. When this changed... it ALL changed.

[Lodatzor]

That's why I entirely place the blame for the escalation of our governmental and poverty woes on this (technically illegal) change on corporate status.

Get rid of this, and it's almost like hitting the Rest button. Both government corruption and the very size and scope of government will reduce naturally, seeing as the primary cause of corruption will no longer be there.

Anyways, I'm out for Friday night. Have a good one.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Corporatism is what you get when corporations corrupt public servants, and get them to use their positions of power for the benefit of the corporations. The only way to prevent corporatism is to strictly limit the power of government.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Probably only white men could vote, since the nation was founded by them. There were free blacks, some of whom owned slaves. I don't know if they were able to vote. Women didn't vote because government was considered mens' work. How many men do you see in daycare today? Women were really not interested in politics.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon:

"The only way to prevent corporatism is to strictly limit the power of government."

I don't honestly know how you can say this, when it's clear that preventing a corporation from spending billions on elections is the key. Easier, cleaner, and more in keeping with what the Framers intended.

"I don't know if they were able to vote"

They were not.

"Women were really not interested in politics. "

C'mon man. that's the same principle as telling a rape victim she was begging for it.

[Lodatzor]

I don't think we can look back at history and say that those denied rights were probably better off without them anyway, because they wouldn't have been interested. It leads some pretty scary places. ;)

But either way, the way such things were fixed by the public influencing a government that had the vested power to do something about it. Under the Constitution, the government is after all OUR instrument for progress. It's become THEIRS because we let them make it so.

lol. Take the power back!

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

Corporations cannot become the defacto government if the American people refuse to allow federal public servants to legislate in areas not authorized in the Constitution. It's that simple! When federal legislators are unable to work for corporate interests, the corporations would now have to try to bribe tens of thousands of state and local legislators.

When power is consolidated, we have tyranny, and when it's dispersed, we have FREEDOM.

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor

There are millions of Americans today who aren't interested in voting. Two hundred years ago, women in general had no interest in voting. There are no records of women demonstrating for the vote until the Nineteenth Century.

We can't judge the culture of two hundred years ago by the way we see things today. Much of what is accepted today would have been scandilous then, and their standards are foreign to us today.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon:

"When federal legislators are unable to work for corporate interests, the corporations would now have to try to bribe tens of thousands of state and local legislators."

But... they already do. It's utterly endemic to our system at both the State and the Federal level. Why? Because they are now considered natural citizens deserving of natural rights. Take that away and there is no way they can bribe ANYONE.

[Lodatzor]

"When power is consolidated, we have tyranny, and when it's dispersed, we have FREEDOM."

That's what Marx thought too. He figured that if everyone had joint ownership of the means of their production, there would be no need for a State at all. He failed to realize how easy this system would be for people to abuse and prevert.

This same problem and threat exists with an absence of regulations and laws levied by a central government.

[Lodatzor]

Think about it, man. When Stalin assumed control of the government which had been set up to facilitate the shift into workers' shard ownership, he effectively 'bought' everyone's property, without paying a penny.

The same threat is present in letting corporatism run unchecked, as those who own more can (and have proven they WILL) dictate the lives and choices of those who own less. That's not freedom, man.

[Lodatzor]

"There are millions of Americans today who aren't interested in voting. "

But at least they CAN.

"Two hundred years ago, women in general had no interest in voting. "

Probably because they were told that it is their job to just make babies and take care of the household. Once they effectively ran the country during the World Wars they realized how much more they wanted to be involved with the national decision-making.

[Lodatzor]

"We can't judge the culture of two hundred years ago by the way we see things today."

Quite right. We've achieved Progress. What works for us now is not what worked for them back in the old days.

And yet here we are, today, still deathly afraid of even the word socialism, even though that fear was stoked deliberately towards our military and industrial rivals, and has nothing to do with inherent good or evil.

Despite what Beck says, Progress is not a dirty word. It's what we've achieved.

[Lodatzor]

Hey, if you wanna keep on talking about this, do you feel like moving it to PM? 500 characters or less is getting kinda old, plus the new YouTube format makes it hard to find comments. ;)

[abukamoon]

@Lodatzor Socialism is a dirty word just as Democracy is a dirty word, and for the same reason: It is the group against the individual. When you think of Democracy, think of a lynch mob. Or think of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Socialism is the state against the individual, supposedly for the benefit of the individual. If we can't trust corporations, how can we trust government? Both are comprised of individuals. BBoth can used power for their own purposes.

[Lodatzor]

@abukamoon:

But only one of them can be voted in or out....

That's the singular genius of our system. The only constants are that which comprise the Constitution. Everything else is just legislation, and can be changed form generation to generation. It's supposed to be protection, because the only people who can make decisions are those who are elected.

As we've agreed, this system is being perverted by corporate interests. But we do not vote for those guys... they owe us nothing.

[Lodatzor]

Yet they have considerable power over our lives. They set the price of your electricity, of your gas, of your car, of your heating, of your phone bill, of your TV bill, of your food costs, of your clothing... and also how much you get paid.

The only people who are less affected by this cycle are the self-employed -- a dying breed because of the myriad ways their giant competitors can run them out of business. All this has arisen the LESS we've regulated them.

Imagine no constraints at all!

[Lodatzor]

And now they have their claws in government, lobbying for greater reduction in regulation, more privatization, fewer taxes for the rich (placing the burden on everyone else)... the existence of government is not the root problem.

In fact it's the one thing standing in their freaking way. Remove that, and we have nothing left but what the rich tell us we have. What good is owning your own house, for example, when they own everything else around you.

Plutocracy is NOT a good thing.

[Lodatzor]

That's why I say, again, with the way our system has come to be twisted, yuo CANNOT just reduce government. That's not the cause of the problem. That will just hand over control to those doing the twisting.

Reduce their ability to twist the tree, and the tree will start to grow straight again. There's not other way that will work. Government, as an entity, is not evil. It's what we've used to get all the freedoms we hold dear today.

We just need to get it working for US again.

[jamespunani]

im not concerned if people want to talk shit about corrupt congressman, FREEDOM OF SPEECH U BIG PUNANIS

[randbrose]

Responsibilty to call for civility? Wow, much like Dems did for the last 8 years. Yea, dems are for free speach only if that speach is left wing rhetoric. If one is conservative, he not allowed free speach.

[nca777]

being the loudest minority does not make you the majority as alluded to by so many comments here. The current administration was elected by a majority vote. So, let's get over it. Would it be too tenuous to assert that the quasi-violent opposition from the opposing party shows some influence from their former representatives actions over 8 years in office, ie war.

[leestauf]

Wow, when the lefties shut down meetings and protest it's "exercising your first amendment rights". When a real American gets fed up and lets them know it it's nazis and brown shirts.

YOU B@STARDS ARE ON YOUR WAY OUT!

[nca777]

look at all the psychos...the man is being reasonable..grow up.

[leestauf]

Oh, I get it! He's talking about the leftists that shout down conservative speakers at college campuses, the gays that invade churches during services, the code pink idiots that harass the recruiters in San Fransisco, spike trees, blow up pipelines..........ever notice how a teeter totter works nca77?

[nca777]

you're a fool. there's debate, then there's shouting and blathering. my problem is that it appears these things are more about american grandstanding than the politics or ideas.

[ssprinklv]

sorry for the reverse order of my comment I cut and pasted badly.

[ssprinklv]

If they continue to ignore the voice of the people as expressed by our votes then the only option they leave us is the option of force. Never forget it is but 540 or so politicians that are creating this grief for the 330 million citizens and they shall adhere to the citizens will or be replaced by whatever means they allow us.

[ssprinklv]

What I do not support is our 'elected elite' marginalizing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. Our first ammendment guarantees us the right to redress our grievances with the government. By the definintion of the word grievance it will be a dissenting opinion.

No matter what party you claim allegiance to, we must all hold true to our constitutionaly guaranteed rights. If these'elected elite' don't care to listen to the citizens, It is our duty to replace them.

[ssprinklv]

I wish to preface my comment with the knowledge that I am a 'hated liberal.'

I do support Health Care reform.

[jensen1901]

"The Clinton proposal for health care will triple the deficit!"

-- Dick Cheney, 1994

"Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that."

-- Dick Cheney, 2001

For the GOP it's all political. They only care about demonizing the other side.

[skydancer1x]

He's appearing on MSNBC.....what else do you need to know?

[BARRY0619]

Baird is a communist idiot. Vote him out

[reppie2roo]

redbarman1, Bush's legitimacy was ?'d because the Gore camp tried to circumvent the law, and make the entire election about a small number of heavily Democratic counties. Once the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the law, the Dems and liberal elite pushed the idea of "selected not elected"

The real arrogance comes from these same liberal elite like Maddow and Baird, who are trying to portray these Americans as people incapable of independent thought.

[Lodatzor]

Sorry, no, you're not right about this one.

Bush legitimacy was questioned because he pressed for the Electoral Arbiter of Florida (who was part of hos presidential campaign no less!) to declare him the winner before all the votes had been counted.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that no declaration would be legal or valid until this process was completed. The US Supreme Court overruled this, conveniently for their favorite candidate. ;)

[steelers5ty9]

This is horrible. They make it look like the liberals are victims of the terrible, barbaric conservatives. It makes it look like conservatives at these meetings are acting like animals. That could not be any farther from the truth.

[GRS15720]

The Democrats are really out of touch with what is going on. People are letting them know what the want, but the Dems don't want to hear it. They don't have a mandate to change things, they only won by a 4% margin and most of those people were Independents. Who are changing their minds about Obama and Congress.

[imskoggy]

redbarman1,

Don't judge him by his words, just Obama by his actions.  Can you tell me why I owe the goverment 192,000.00?? Why do we have 32 Czars that were not elected by the people? Seems like the formation of Tyranny.

[Lodatzor]

@imskoggy

LOL, you do realize that under Clinton we had 7 Czar positions, and under Bush we jumped up magically to 35?

So far Obama has added only 3. Look elsewhere for your accusations of tyranny. ;)

[stryker1999]

Obama wants to create a "civilian armed force" as well armed and and well funded as the military.

Imagine that...

[Abnermoon]

The American people"sovereigns" are tired of the subject "government" trying to steal the role of "sovereign" from, we the people! Today they believe that they are in control when it is we that must administer control upon them. The issue is that we have no representation and no avenue for redress of grievances. Same old problems, but people that are sick and tired of the tyranny.

[enok45]

I live in washington state. He will never get my vote. He wants to silence how ost of us feel.

[Anschutzhammerlitoz]

I guess if we're not willing to sit and listen to his lies then we're engaging in "unacceptable conduct".

[GodotheInfantry]

Yeah, yeah, yeah...Brian, you're FIRED! wait til 2010.

[redbarman1]

I like the rant and lousy comments of this thread. It shows how conservative, egoistical your society has become.

You think because you disagree, everybody disagrees? open your eyes, Obama was elected, largely, and without any controversy about his legitimacy, unlike his predecessor.

[steelers5ty9]

Omama was elected by a smaller margin than any other pres. in history, incuding Bush. The media would go ape shit if Bush tried supressing public opinion like this, but when Obama does it they praise him.

[nca777]

the bush admin wouldnt dare attempt this style of politics, haha.

[Lodatzor]

Why would you say something so obviously untrue?

Hell, Gore even WON the popular vote against Bush. But luckily for the Chimp, the national majority doesn't matter, only the electoral vote.

Another factor to consider is that Obama won (comfortably) in an election with the highest levels of voter participation in the last 40 years.

For once, the country actually spoke clearly.

Sorry.

[VHer5150]

Fuck mancow

[rogerfgay]

This characterization is very systematic - an obvious prelude to use of force to put down political opposition. The same pattern of propaganda has been followed by every dictator that attempts to justify their violent dictatorship. Blame the victims.

[brandokelly]

fuck you Baird

[dtt1900]

We are now getting threatened by this bitch?

[tntpop]

Liars... the left has done this for years. Citizens are fed up with your lies and the liars telling them. BOTH PARTIES!

[MrBradleyDavid]

Yea, Robert Mike57, but I prefer Mr. Scumbag if you don't mind.  You attitude is representative of what Jame Madison or Thomas Jefferson would refer to as the "Tyranny of the Majority." That's why they worked hard to giving us a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracies never worked well even in Ancient Greece. That is why we have the government we have and guarantees set in the Constitution to preserve our basic rights. Our government is not to be run as a popularity contest! But of rights!

[rialcnis]

Go take your Politbureau elsewhere.

[DDunker51]

Congressman Baird, you are a coward and an idiot. You represent Americans, but you are NOT listening, and you just don't get it. What part of "we don't WANT government health care" don't you understand? Well, we'll see if you get the message in November 2010, when you have to go out and join the unemployment line. Seems that's the only language Democrats understand.

[robertmike57]

Most people want a public option, but you scumbags do't care about the truth. Baird got reelected with 71% of the vote, people know you low lifes are in a minority.

[L4k3rF4N]

These politiciians are getting tired of being called out for being bought by special interests. When this happens at town halls, people will want to investigate the allegations more, and it then goes up on youtube for more people to research. No we can't have people digging at the truth...that is wrong. We need the news stations to influence what we beleive on both sides of the spectrum, right or left because we are nothing more than dummies that need to be spoken down to. RIGHT GANG!

[bzemky]

What is with you people? He is not saying people can't disagree with him. He is saying that people shouldn't intimidate (see: people bringing guns to town halls) and people shouldn't disrupt (have you seen the town halls where everyone is yelling?)

Do you all work for the insurance industry?

[polarbearcrisis]

Rachel Maddow: You actually "encourage" destructon of freedom of speech. This is no longer a only "danger". You have succeeded occassionally. YOU are creating violence because you are supressing people's ideas. Look in the mirror. YOU and BSNBC are the problem.

[Lucem2]

Excellent Response.

Lots of Respects for Mr. Baird.

[Maxwedge12000]

These fucking democrats have to go before we have not freedoms left.

[LoneStarVol]

You stupid BITCH!!!!!!!!!! Nancy Pelosi first called those of us who are dissenting Natzis. She said that...it's on youtube...cant deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!! The democrats said this first!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's not having townhalls because he's a coward.

[LoneStarVol]

He should be scared!!!!!!!!!! He continues to compare people who disagree with him to Tim McVeigh. YOU ARE TOTALLY A PIECE OF $HIT!!!!!!!!!!!! Nah, Nah, NAH NAH Hey, Hey ......GOOD BYE!!!!!!!!!!! 2010 you are out you fucking moron!!!!!!!

[yahazif]

This guy is a M**ther F**ker

[boat6868]

This guy is a weasel...I hope his district sends a patriot to Congress in 2010.

[RickSkold]

Both of the MEN on this video SUCK.

NOBAMA!

[JigsMom]

This loser needs some fresh air. He can't even see what's going on right in front of him. This is REAL, Baird! Get your head out! We will NOT let you and your ilk take our freedoms away. PERIOD. Pussy.......

[kenandjasha]

I guess congressman Baird's definition of a democratic republic abiding by the constitution is socialized medicine. lol

[fredzepp1]

Yea right. Tens of millions of Americans are watching their elected leaders ignore the Constitution and threaten their individual liberty. This is a grassroots movement if there was ever was one. Then the power drunk politicians that disagree with their constituents label them a threat??? To whom? To the leftists that are desperately trying to strip Americans of their precious individual liberty and freedom and put it in the lap of even bigger tyrannical govt. Not going to happen. Proud patriots

[tripit88]

He lost my vote, sorry I voted for him last time.

[kenandjasha]

Thanks for admitting that is honorable. Vote his ass out next time, and put in a third party candidate that actually believes in the constitution before its too late. Also, see the big picture that he obviously supports. That big picture is not good for us.

[LoneStarVol]

You should be.

[megabraddotcom]

Baird is a coward and a loser. Obama's little poo pants boy is afraid of people who disagree with him, and he's a politician! Maybe wrong career choice? Hahahahaha......