Posted on 11/01/2006 9:08:36 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
Vice-President Chenney and Rep. Charles Rangel Debate
Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY)-- who is set to become chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee if the Democrats win the House in the upcoming elections – has said he wouldn’t continue “a single one” of President Bush’s tax cuts.
Vice-President Dick Cheney said that he thought this might be bad for the economy. “I don’t know if the stock market would like it,” Chenney said.”Charlie doesn’t understand how the economy works. So if a man like Charlie Rangel were to be chairman of the committee, and sitting there with the gavel, all he has to do is not act, just don’t call up the legislation, and there’ll be a big tax increase.”
Rangel rebutted Chenney by saying, “He’s a real son of a bitch.”
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC News rated the debate a “draw.” “Both men made good points,” said Olbermann. “You could see that each side stuck to its basic theme. There wasn’t anything here that changed my mind. While partisan Republicans will focus on Chenney’s emphasis on tax and economic policy, objective observers will have to admit that he didn’t really refute Rangel’s argument.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
I watched the last few minutes too. I figured he'd go Vesuvius over the Kerry news and he didn't let us down. If the Republicans do well this election, Olbermann will really have a show worth watching on the night after.
Talk about chutzpah.
I know Olbermann lost it long ago, but seriously, this is a new low.
What a pathetic, sad man.
hahahahaha! Thanks.
As a proud Yankee whose ancestors fought on the Union side in the Civil War, and a proud Republican party member, I am outraged that this twit would compare Bush supporters to Bully Brooks and his caning of Charles Sumner.
Typical transference from the liberal idiots.
On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime—Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age 37. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another 18 years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war.
What?
For the other half of the country... Que?
It seems KO has Network syndrome... well, more like videodrome.
The very best reply to this dish of afterbirth he calls thought is to ignore it.
The Olbermanns of the world will depart the spotlight soon enough. When they are gone, laugh at the executives who ever gave them airtime. Otherwise, focus your attention on productive pursuits.
No problem :o).
I'll pitch in for a complementary one-way ticket to the country of his choice or a box of razor blades.
Olberman is a dumbass. The caning had nothing to do with the slavery debate itself. Sumner insulted the cousin of the man who caned him...on the floor. He was way out of line. For a while the Senate had a black out on the statements Sumner made. Not any more.
The Gentleman decided to defend his cousin's honor. So he whipped the shit out of Sumner. End of story.
Do you mean an adult female who was also born as a female?
Olby is so brainless...
How would Harold Ford hooking up with Caucasian women be miscegenation? It's not exactly black and white. It's more like off-white and white. If the girl's got a good tan, she might be darker than he is.
Bush used Karl Rove's time machine.
By the way, is there anybody else who'd pay good money to watch Dan Patrick re-enact Brooks v Sumner on Olbermann on pay-per-view?
That is just too funny, LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.