If it wasnt for NewsBusters and the internet, I would never see any of the stupid crap PMSNBC puts out.

Take a straw dog argument and just run with it. Nobody is saying get rid of Medicare, but he's desperate to make criticizing socialism look like an outrageous idea.

Listen putz, both medicare and medicade are bankrupt, how much more socialism do you need before you realize its a money losing failure. Certainly putting the whole country under that plan cannot be wise.

Heck, Obama said it best when he said UPS and FedEx are doing well while the USPS is losing money hand over fist. Thanks, Obama stating what the state run media refuses to admit. The government cannot run anything without it turning into a total money sucking failure.

PMSNBC can bite my shiny metal a$$!

---

Ask yourself: Do I want a good paying job, or do I want a government hand out. Its that simple!

They know they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I had this show on for a few minutes today, but changed the channel. Now I'm glad I did...my head would have exploded.

O'Donnell is an idiot. 

Because going on and being treated like that helps Republicans and hurts democraps. It illustrates their hypocrosy and idiocy better than going on Fox and giving a little soundbite ever could.

Plus going on there is very brave. Unlike Pelosi and Reid who have boycotted Fox for almost a decade because they are afraid to be challeneged.

You don't change minds by hiding from the people you're trying to reach. 

I'll answer the basic question, Sterling.

Medicare is socialism.

Social Security is socialism.

They should both be ended by ceasing to allow enrollment, and by allowing people to earn their health insurance guarantee through the same method that my parents did -- they worked for it for 20-25 years, and gained a retirement package with health coverage included.  Retirement should be planned for. 

And barring that, you should have the honor that I have, and be willing to take care of your parents in their old age, should their planning prove to be inadequate. 

I expect that of you, because I refuse to be willingly extorted to facilitate your lazy behavior and bad planning.

I demand that of you, because it is my right to be free of your demands on my earnings -- and congruently, your duty to provide for yourself and your family without hijacking my earnings throughout the course of my life.

You have a right to a retirement -- if you earn it.  You have a right to medical care -- if you earn it.  But you deserve neither if you insist on burgling my earnings potential to get them.

And as to Lawrence O'Donnell, he knows perfectly well that he is changing the subject of debate.  Nobody is discussing Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security, even though all three are or will soon be bankrupt -- much like the current health-care proposal will be within two decades of its inception, and America with it.  None of those programs are a subject of debate, even though their bankruptcy eminently proves the failings of socialism.  O'Donnell's method is to present a pair of unteneble choices to an elected official:

1. The Republican announces that Medicare et al IS, in fact, socialism; and loses re-election.  Hence, O'Donnell is biased for intentionally setting up Republicans to lose elections via his position in the media, or;
2. The Republican refuses to answer the question (what happened here) and O'Donnell badgers him into making a logically un-sound argument, which discredits conservatism via discrediting the purveyor(s) of conservatism.  Hence, O'Donnell is biased for intentionally setting up conservatives to lose elections via his position in the media.

I notice that you're not really responding to the charge that O'Donnell is biased.  One doesn't really have to strain the grey matter to understand why.

Geddoudamy site, troll.

petitjean

Why "nterview" a guest if the guest is not permitted to respond? This is worse than rude.  

  Dispatch from heaven.com

  The Sterling troll is actually posting directly from hell.

  He has been given a choice by beelzebub this night, every night, for eternity -

1. He will spend the rest of the night sucking the pain out of the dingleberry encrusted fat hairy inflamed hemorrhoids of Pol Pot.

or

2. He will make an inflammatory hostile confrontational post at Newsbusters and garner a minimum of 20 impassioned return posts from concerned rational souls, pushing those souls one step closer to snapping and bludgeoning a dirt encrusted hippie liberal, guaranteeing hippie soul for hell.

Looks like he made his quota of return posts tonight. No sucking Pol Pots' hemorrhoids tonight. Congratulations Sterling. You get a vacation. You only have to chew the mold off the corns on Goebbels' hammertoe dog poo covered feet.

  So come on guys, decide what you want for Sterling. Pol Pot's hemorrhoids or Goebbels' corns. Frankly, I will take Pol Pot. Less typing. 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

I agree.  He should have said, "Yes, Social Security and Medicare are socialist, and like all aspects of socialism, they were poisonous ideas that created more dependents the less effective they were.  Unfortunately these poisons have consumed the dependents to the extent that cutting them off will destroy the dependents.  We're stuck with these failures.  Having learned from the mistakes of instituting these socialist programs, we should determine not to revisit those mistakes by adding health insurance reform to segments of the economy that were 'solved' by socialism. Or to borrow bigtimer's quote from Andrew Breitbart: 'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea.'"  Now that ought to do it.

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."  -George Best

Kathryn Harrold? Who she?

Barack Obama voted for a single payer government bad healthcare system before he voted against it!

RR,

I agree. Culberson should have said:

"Yes, Social Security and Medicare are socialist programs. However, there are currently huge numbers of people dependent upon them, and there would be tremendous upheaval in the nation if they were completely eliminated. That said, there's a tremendous amount of waste and fraud in both, and they each have funding problems that will become critical in the next ten to twenty years. With this in mind, and the first baby boomers now beginning to receive benefits from both programs, we should be diligently working on solving such problems rather than creating a new government program destined to be similarly unmanageable."  ns