Franken: 'If Republicans Take Over Congress, They'll Implement A Truly Dangerous Agenda' (VIDEO)

It was Clintons fault, he should of just told the truth.
Like liberals in general he had no integrity
I'm all for using whats left of the stimulus to try obama for treason.

Of course you are in favor of spending money on any old witch hunt, that's what your all about!

That was downright disgusting, like listening to the fact that MIchael Jackson is still dead times 100. I don't care if my representatives have affairs. I care that they work for justice, for the US people, and for just international relations.

Not that I'm a big fans of the Democrats--for the most part, I agree that we have a one party system with 2 right wings, as Gore Vidal has put it for many years. Obama's agenda has disappointed me greatly, as did Clinton's, and it seems that most of the difference between the Democraps and Reptiles is rhetoric.

That said, at least we don't have to listen about a blow job for two years when we have a Dem in office, or crap like "they (those, um, evil-doers) hate us because we're free." Sorry to say, but that's the major difference.

Yet Franken is right--we can't give up. And there are some decent dems in there, more than on in the other wing. I am mostly concerned with our illegal wars of terror, and at this point, with Wikileaks heating up and people starting to get the fact that the wars are ransacking the taxpayers (yet filling the coffers of the war industries), its nice to have a president who doesn't sound like a moron, let alone that Cheney. Did he ever have a pulse????? Maybe at this point people will start getting a clue.

I agree totally. I am a huge fan of Bill Clinton, one of the best Presidents we've ever had, I voted for him twice and would have voted for him a third time. But times have changed. Bush killed the Republican party, the neocons are gone. The Tea Partiers are going to run things now.

In your dreams!

We've only until November to see if the dream comes true.

If your dreaming about the TEA PARTY winning, in the last poll I saw only 17% of voters thought the tea party represented their views.

17%? Hey, they've got a higher approval rate than congress!

Only 17% are members.
46% believe tea party is good for america.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_201...

Actually that is lower than congresses approval rating of 24%!

Net neutrality is a ruse, it lets the government step in as arbitor of what can be said.
get wiser...

Dude, you don't even know what it is.

Someone just told you that so you repeat it.

Net neutrality forces broadband providers to provide every site with the same amount of bandwidth for their users.

Without it, companies would just stop providing the internet to their competitors.

And since the airwaves are supposed to be public property, this makes you kind of an ignorant tool to think that it's a "ruse."

It lets the government regulate the market which is the same as giving them carte blanch for other things they will want to interfere with in the future.
And before you say it -- no they don't already regulate the internet.
Their regulation is limited to antitrust situations.

People find it hard to watch al frankin

No, they do already regulate the internet.

the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the various titles of the FCC, etc.

And before you say it, Net Neutrality IS ALREADY IN PLACE. Has been forever. So how could it be a regulatory scheme?

Your argument fails.

That may be true of whoever "al frankin" is, but I'll tell you this: Many people -- I can't generalize, as you did -- DO like to listen to Al Franken.

Then you surely must have something wrong with you.

Oh, don't be stupid and time-wasting. Yawn.

sheez! republicans did it lol
even though the democratic congress was at the drivers seat the whole time.

You really have a problem with the facts don't you!

I guess i do ?

The left won't support an invasion, occupation and then inevitable genocide of the Iranian population. The right and the Zionists will support war though, no doubt about it.

You refer to the bailouts of the banks as Obama`s when in reality Bush pushed for the bailouts.

Bush gave the bankers the money and threatened marshall law if they didn`t get it.

Bush signed the paper giving the money to the banks, I know you would like to re-write history and claim it was Obama but it was Bush.

Not many progressives will support another war..Many of them want our troops to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq...We hate war with a passion, and we hate warmongers even more..The economy is making a gradual change for the better..

How do you figure?

I like your enthusiasm but lower your rifle soldier, I'm not out for some headed-nowhere, heavily-biased argument like most of the Current community ;) Truth be told, I actually agree with you for the most part.

I would argue though that believing that there will be no recovery at all is a bit defeatist. Things aren't great by any measure (as a current job seeker, I can assure you of that) but with proper investment in infrastructure, appropriate business stimulus, and a constant eye toward sustainable growth and responsible practices (as opposed to big bubbles and, consequently, big bursts) then recovery is possible.

The mountain is high, but we've still got feet don't we?

No problem sir ;)

I'm sorry to hear that. I suppose then that my fatal flaw then is that I'm too young and naive to realize just how screwed we are LOL. Luckily for me I'm still riding that youthful college optimism. It certainly helps when the chips are down.

Does the name "George Soros" ring any bells with you? Or are you just engaging in selective, partisan outrage?

I suppose these corporations would also get a tax write-off for all contributions they make. I don't think corporations will ever have to pay another dollar to the commons.

"Senator Al Franken is amongst the very few highly intelligent, educated, reasonable and empathic people in the world."

You say this for no other reason than he says things you already agree with. This does not show respect for Franken, but is a back-handed way for you to boost your self-esteem by claiming smart people agree with you.

I have over a dozen people in my phone's contact list with more education than Franken (you can add another to that number, as I have my own e-mail address as an entry in my phonebook).

As far as "empathic", are you %&$#'ing kidding me? You think someone who uses the title of one of his books to insult the intelligence and weight of an individual is one of the most empathetic people in the world?!? No, Franken is not empathetic...just plain pathetic.

I am intelligent, so I measure the world against Scientific Method as often as I can. I trust my own judgment.
Life is so short; I have to wonder if you might entertain the notion that your pretext on reality has flaws.
However, this question you must wrestle within your own heart.
Just remember you can always change your mind.
Please, for all our benefits, support free speech on the internet. I for one would miss being able to do this with you.

You're not an independent and you don't even know what socialism is.

If you fancy yourself a centrist, then Obama is your candidate because there's nothing left-wing about him.

You lost me in the first sentence... Obama isnt pushing a socialist agenda. Stop watching fox news already.

"You're not an independent and you don't even know what socialism is."

You are obviously either blind or just dense. You don't see what he has been up to?
And yes I am independant. I don't like either party all that much.

Define socialism, do it, I dare you.

Because no who has ever called him that on this site is even remotely informed enough to know what that word even means. Let alone whether it could apply.

You've been told what to think, so it sounds convincing to you. But to the rest of us, who actually understand what's going on right now, you have inapplicable, canned talking points right from Glenn Beck.

A Healthcare bill that insurance companies support is not socialism. A finance reform bill that's not even as strong as Glass-Stiegel is not socialism. No reduction or elimination of Bush-era security state measures is not socialism. No strong tax reform on the rich is not socialism. Proposed cutbacks to social security and medicare is not socialism. An economic stimulus that was mostly tax cuts is not socialism.

He's not even remotely socialist.

He's just a combination of Bill Clinton and George Bush. He's got the former's domestic policies and the latter's foreign policies.

As for you being "independent," yeah, American Independent Party maybe. Otherwise you're just another right-winger, whatever you wanna call yourself doesn't change that.

I recall a health care bill that people wanted very much...
What bill are you talking about?

The old define socialism trick that you guys resort to.
You know as well as anyone it has several definitions.
A couple that fit right in with obama's plans -- he also fits the definition of a fascist.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Nothing leftist except that he belonged to the marxist "new party" which took over the democrats to push them left.
Nothing leftist if you discount everything he does.
Bullshit not excepted here.

Socialism? "Obama's agenda"? you have a point when it comes to uniting the parties through transparency was a sham.However,fact checking,objective views and conscious understanding works wonders. National debt in 2000 was...well see for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

How is it a trick?

You had to go to the god damn dictionary because you couldn't even define it on your own. What does that say?

Positing a POINT is not a TRICK, but I guess, not knowing anything about anything, you would think anyone who disagrees with you is attempting to trick you.

Protip: It's not a trick if you don't actually know what it means.

So, care to tell me how ANYTHING that has been done fulfills definitions 1, 2 or 3?

Not even the first definition, the vaguest one, has even been remotely considered, let alone attempted or achieved.

You're a tool.

Before i thought you were a reasonable thinking person but it's clear your just a hack.
Everytime someone brings up socialism you say define it, which usually changes the subject at hand -- the fact that obama is a socialist.
Your going to have us believe that progressives don't advocate for collective distribution of goods ie healthcare.
Does your president not have a pay czar - an unelected official who can mandate pay in the free market? Did he not force banks to take bailouts so the govnment could tell them what to do and who could have bonuses?
Did he not take over car companies and force their stockholders to take a loss?
Did he not just pass a bill putting the government in charge of all things financial?
Is he not trying right now to make people pay for producing carbon (the air you breath)
etc etc -- If you don't think he is trying to turn this into a socialist country, then maybe your just not thinking

"Your going to have us believe that progressives don't advocate for collective distribution of goods ie healthcare. "

That's not socialism, it's a public service. Are firefighters socialist? Aren't they dealing out a "collective distribution of protection?'

It's a meaningless argument wrapped up in pointless semantics.

Until we say there's no such thing as property, it's not socialism.

"Does your president not have a pay czar - an unelected official who can mandate pay in the free market?"

No, he doesn't, at all. You just made that up. I imagine you're referring to the guy who can limit executive bonuses from banks that received bailout funds, that's a huge difference.

And unless you think tens of billions of taxpayer dollars should be dished out to the people who destroyed our economy so they can buy a mansion and live comfortably for the rest of their lives, I fail to see what the big deal is in having ACCOUNTABILITY for PUBLIC FUNDS.

"Did he not force banks to take bailouts so the govnment could tell them what to do and who could have bonuses?"

What kind of Orwellian, idiotic world do you live in?

By what leap of idiocy did you connect a bailout of banks as being FORCING them to take the money? That would be, I don't know, the exact OPPOSITE of what it means for a government to bail out a failed industry.

Here's how this works. If you fail but your company is too big to let die, lest the economy dies with it, you DON'T get to use the public money you HAD to receive to pay yourself a FUCKING BONUS.

What happened to fiscal responsibility? Are you completely insane? You think we just spend 2 trillion dollars to save our economy so that we could ruin the VACATION PLANS of some fucking criminal executives? Are you insane?

"Did he not take over car companies and force their stockholders to take a loss?"

No, he BAILED THEM OUT, they would be GONE right now without the public money.

And how do you FORCE shareholders to take a loss? Do you understand what FAILURE means?

There would be ZERO stock, at ALL, if they hadn't been rescued.

And you're complaining because the stock market moves up and down? Jesus, no one forces that genius.

"Did he not just pass a bill putting the government in charge of all things financial? "

No, he didn't. He passed a modest reform bill NOT EVEN AS STRONG AS LAWS IN PLACE A DECADE AGO.

It doesn't regulate derivatives, it doesn't prevent too big to fail, it doesn't address credit default swaps, it doesn't stop subprime loans and it doesn't separate consumer banks from investment banks.

Yeah, big government takeover there. I wonder how Wall Street will survive regulations that don't change anything that caused the crash in the first place. Boo hoo.

"Is he not trying right now to make people pay for producing carbon (the air you breath) "

No, first off cap and trade wouldn't even do that and they haven't even attempted to put it on the table. Not that there's anything socialist about environmental regulation to begin with by any definition.

"If you don't think he is trying to turn this into a socialist country, then maybe your just not thinking"

No, I think quite a bit, which is an immense improvement over being told what to think by FOX news.

You're just a blowhard who will throw any label you can at Obama, a guy who hasn't even done that much, because you're clueless and you're scared and you don't know what to think.

You can't make the label stick because no matter how hard you try to spin reality, it just doesn't fit even the vaguest definition of socialism.

You look at a Welfare State like Norway or Sweden or a Communist country like Cuba or China (sometimes), it's pretty damn obvious what socialism does and does not look like.

An existing government which provides services is not socialism. The eradication of private property, that's socialism. Government regulation is not socialism, governments commanding economies by threat of military force is socialism.

But you don't even care about this, you just want to believe what you want to believe because it's a hell of a lot easier than ever admitting that you could be wrong about anything. Which is a shame, because you're wrong, demonstrably, about practically EVERYTHING.

Where to start with such a great volume of bullshit.
Yes fire fighters and other services ARE socialism as well as social security, medicare, and obamacare.
The confiscation of people's money in order to REDISTIBUTE INCOME is a central tenant of marxism.
Of course the fledgling socialist government uses such arguments as "its an emergency"
"its for the poor" "We'll get even with so and so with this new legislation"
All excuses so that it's the "right thing to do" to give government powers that it shouldn't have and will surely abuse in order to grow itself.

Economies do not have to be managed by the threat of military power -- in the beginning this can be done with blackmail, bribery and other sleazy tactics.
Tactics that ANY ole dumbass who understands news knows this administration is guilty of.

This latest financial bill that you say is mild has over 500 regulations in it and contains rules that exempt some federal agencies from the freedom of information act --- If the administration is not socialist, then why is it waging this war on capitalism and transparency at a time when our country is going down the tubes?
This shows where their priorities are. Not the economy, not jobs, but the advancement of themselves and their power.

Word is that some cap n trade style legislation will be snuck in while congress is out in september.

You are not a thinking man, i was mistaken about that.
You sound as insane as any blue koolaid drinker i've heard so far.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if the republicans don't win the house, senate, or either?

Pray tell, did you enjoy the Bush administration?

Because the folks who ran that show are still running your show, the ranks have not substantially changed.

If you wanna call that a revolution, be my guest.

But if you think things are going to change, you are -way- dumber than you let on.

Bush was the reason we have this democratic majority in the first place, so I wouldnt be surprised if he was just buttering things up for Obama.

sad but i see your point

What's that supposed to mean? That they were on the same side? Are you insane?

All of your favorite FOX news commentators were Bush men and Karl Rove is still running the right-wing propaganda engine.

Look 'em up, nothing has changed. There's nothing in the Tea Party movement about cutting military spending, ending wars, bringing accountability to Finance or fixing the deficit by raising taxes.

It's all the same shit, they're just being really careful not to acknowledge that they don't have a plan which substantially differs from their predecessor.

It's the same reason McCain lost the election, because none of his talking points were any different than Bush's.

Wait...are you actually suggesting 1) that the GOP will win back both houses of Congress, 2) that the man who sacrificed his own political capital for two different bills he believed in is petulant enough to spend 2 years whining about deadlock without trying to compromise for the good of American citizens, and 3) that, after exhibiting this childish behavior, he will RESIGN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY out of, simple, frustration?

Saladin, I'm quickly learning that I can always count on you for a reasonable opinion in the middle of this craziness.

Thank you for all that you do.

Well he has to keep playing the "oppressed" card.

I don't understand what you're referring to.

Black Liberation theology

"Black Liberation Theology asks whose side should God be on - the side of the oppressed or the side of the oppressors. If God values justice over victimization, then God desires that all oppressed people should be liberated. According to Cone, if God is not just, if God does not desire justice, then God needs to be done away with. Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of Black Liberation Theology"

This is what the church that Obama went to for 20 years taught.

Okay bear with me...

1) I don't understand how you're interpreting that
2) What does that have to do with your original thought?

He has to make it seem like the current system that we have is oppressive.

A Republican majority would be the oppressors

Sorry, sometimes my thought go all over the place.

But if he's truly faithful to that line of reasoning, wouldn't logic lead him to the conclusion that they system is oppressive, not a particular political party?

For example, in his campaign against the health insurance system, he did not initially aim his attacks at the Republican party, but at the system of health insurance itself. In this way, and in keeping with that church's teachings, it's not a person within the organization, but the organization itself (as God is not necessarily an entity, but instead everything surrounding us; the system itself) that is to blame for the plight of the oppressed.

In this way he has no more reason to resign under a Republican majority than under a Democratic one as long as the oppressed still suffer under a system that oppresses them.

Been there my friend ;)

So...you're saying Bush intentionally screwed up, so that the next guy could have it his way???
That makes no sense.

What fantasy world do you live in?

Small government, low-tax Republicans haven't existed since Nixon, if they ever existed at all.

Thats where the tea party comes into play.

Reagan was a good model but I would go farther libertarian than him.

It's going to take a while though to wean Americans off of government dependency

Reagan contributed 3 trillion of our current 12 trillion national debt. This in an era where our currency was probably worth close to twice what it is right now. Reagan was more of an idiot than Bush was. You're just making shit up.

And the Tea Party is run by goons like Dick Armey and other Bush fanboys.

You think someone like Michelle Bachmann is going to be any different than Bush? That's what you're dealing with right now.

I think you're becoming more & more delusional with each "submit" button.

Cut taxes despite our deficit?
Cut spending, except on things like the military, that takes a lion's share of the budget?
Cut the government in the cheap areas, but not the expensive ones?

Yeah, I am scared of republican financial irresponsibility.

Left, right.... their face, their ass, what's the difference?

As bad as Obama is, compare Clinton to the Bushes. Compare even Carter to Reagan.

First off, the parties are NOT "left/right." They're "center/right."

And even though they're both bad, you're insane if you think Clinton or Obama are equivalent to Bush and Palin.

We can whine all we want about third-party candidates, I'd love to see them take the forefront. But if we're talking straight about both of the parties here, they are NOT equal.

To use your metaphor, is there REALLY not a difference between dealing with someone's face and dealing with someone's ass?

I don't know about you, but even if the face is really ugly, I'd rather not be shit on.

yea but on the other hand obamas term was dangerous --- because he left us with an illusion of change... and now leaves us even more powerless. as, we thought he was so promising but now even he has let us down.

In some respects that's true. But a failed reform candidacy, like Obama's, is better, any day, than what these wackjobs have lined up.