MSNBC Talking Head Opines GOP at Fault for Any Civil Unrest

MSNBC hostess Chris Jansing opined an interesting position on her Jansing & Company show. She had a two person panel, one Democrat, one Republican, and they were discussing James Carville's opinion that if unemployment does not improve there may be civil unrest in the US. Jansing then laid it out with her leading question "...if that does happen though, is it becuase...the Republican's, who have been hammering at the president...ah...that they would bear some responsibility in that?"

Let's consider that asinine premise. Republican's wanting different outcomes than Obama and Democrats, and using vastly different methods to achieve each side's desired outcome is now responsible for any potential civil unrest in this nation? How? First consider the lefty mantra that "to disagree with Obama" may lead to unrest. Again, how? Since when is it incumbent for the opposition political party to agree with their opposites? Isn't the entire point of two opposing parties to have to basically different approaches to governing? It has always been that way. So how is it now a potential danger to the Republic?

But since Obama appeared and announced his Most Magnificent Self was a candidate for God of the World, suddenly to disagree with the self appointed God is somehow un-American, racist and potentially violent. Isn't this an asinine as well as totally lying premise? Since when have Republican's and Democrats agreed on very much?

Are lefties so historically challenged that they forgot 2.5 years ago when Bush was still POTUS? The left spent 8 years hammering this man for how he walked, how he talked, every idea he ever had and all the rest. But if there would have been unrest then the left assured us it would have been due to Bush's terrible policies, right? But now if there were to be unrest over UNEMPLOYMENT, as that was the topic discussed by Jansing and her panel, then that would be becuase Republican's disagree with Obama?

Is this just the entire left side of the spectrum wholeheartedly endorsing the official Obama position "Blame the other guys no matter what, no matter how long ago, and clearly no matter any facts which may disagree with my hopeful position?" Is that what this is? This is yet another effort to move the middle toward the left, inch by abrading inch. Can ya feel the raw skin as these shameless creatures try to convince a nation that every problem is the fault of some right wing nut job?

They are pulling so hard on the center in this nation in their effort to convince the stupid that we are not a "center right" nation as we have always been. They know to force the bar of centrism toward their position makes radical leftism appear mainstream, when truth and factual reality show it is not in any way a centrist position, no more than reactionary right politics are center, mainstream American politics.

I honestly wonder to myself "do these people have an honest bone in their bodies?" Do they have any shame at all? Is there any sense that honesty is incumbent upon media? Any awareness that their duty is to inform us and not to try and position their personal politics as fact and hopeful agenda? Have media forgotten they and Democrats hated Reagan as if were the Devil incarnate? Did that lead to civil unrest? No. Then how can disagreeing with Obama now do so? How much guts does one have to have to even posit such a stupid and leading position?

For the facts, one more time for the dolts, naysayers and outright liars....YES, poor, poor Obama inherited a recession. He surely did. But, but, but, Obama has had 2.5 years THUS FAR, to mitigate and correct this and he has done exactly the opposite. But for his ordering the Fed to print money to increase cash flow, he has done N-O-T-H-I-N-G!!!!

He only extended the Bush tax cuts under exceptional duress, and then he claimed he'd saved us by signing the bill he was basically forced to agree too. Since Christ was a corporal, and but for progressives, no one with an ounce of economic acumen (except of course Keynesians, Obama and progressives being Keynesian) ever suggested RAISING taxes on anyone during deep recession is the way to correct the problem.

Endeavoring to embark upon class warfare to win political struggle has never led to anything except death, misery and horror. Do the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution ring any bells here? Recall as I demonstrated last week, the huge majority of stimulus money that went to Wisconsin last year, $701 million dollars I believe, went to public employee unions to shore them up, but the private sector got little if much at all. Are private employees not worthy of having their jobs "saved" as Obama alleges he tried to do? Isn't it the damned truth that all that money to public employee unions was to shore up the unions to support Obama in 2012?

Oh, and one more example I can't let slide...all the chatter about lefties objecting to showing ID to vote...uh, since when? I have had to show my DL at the polling station EVERYTIME I ever voted beginning in 1976 when I voted for the first time, and that was true for NC when I lived there and VA, where I lived before and now live. How was I or anyone potentially "disenfranchised" by proving I am Jim Clayton? Or is this what we know it is? Democrats knowing full well that not having to show ID to prove one LEGALLY eligible to vote in the US is a great way for illegals and various others, who do not have the LEGAL right to vote in the US, to cast a ballot. Gee, wonder who they'd likely vote for? Any chance if a lefty thought more than a tiny handful would vote GOP, they'd be all for it? How stupid, partisan or naive are you exactly? Of course that's a rhetorical question....

If one cannot see the pure partisan politics in play with the notion that to disagree with Obama may lead to unrest, they are lying, naive or just plain too damned stupid to get anywhere near a polling booth. Add in the potential voting of illegals and others not eligible, again, BY LAW, and it seems there are some majorly dishonest folks out there.