Republican Option: GOP Anti-Health Reform Rally Hits a Few Snags (VIDEO)

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

I wish you would comment on a sign visible at the Tea Party rallies. The Hitler stuff is infantile, but the sign that ought to be mentioned is the one that says "Obama takes orders from the Rothschilds". The not-so-hidden message here is that the Rothschilds, though not in any way connected to America's economic mess, are Jewish bankers. Why do these so-called Freedom-loving Independents pick on the Rothschilds when they could have said "Bank of America" or "AIG"? The TEA Party mobs are Republicans, and these days that's the party of the Confederacy. And their anti-Semitism is certainly evident.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

I'd like to know what makes the folks, who are so ferociously opposed to the public option, so secure in their current jobs or financial positions that they think the will never need a public option. What would they think if a bill was passed without a public option and they find themselves unemployed and without insurance. How would they protect themselves and their family's health then; with no public option to turn to?

I am a 50 + years old WW no kids. Twice divorced. I recently married after being single for 19 years. I am responsible for my body and my reproductive organs. Over my adult life I have had five long term relationships each wonderful for a time. I do not nor ever have expected the government to be my source of birth control. I do not expect the government to save me from my bad choices. I value my life, my parents and yet do have sympathy for young women who don't make good choices. Unfortunately, I have at least five women friends over the years who have used abortions as a form of birth control. I am pro-choice, but not as a form of birth control the way these women have used abortion. I have three girlfriends who have each had two plus abortions. Casually put - this is sickening to me. At 54 years of age this aches me more today in a very different way than it ached me years ago when I was younger and more blase and naive.
I do believe in abortion for some versions of responsible accident. Not the casual accident. I do not believe in mass abortions for convenience sake. I do not believe as a tax paying American, self employed and hard working that abortions should be paid by the rest of us. It should be a major, excruciating difficult sacrifice and not a mere inconvenience paid by the tax payers. Your comments, editorial, supporting guests, and your attitude is not the right way to go about helping women who need birth control help.
I love your bright mind and sharp wit but you are wrong on this issue for most women.

wear a condom and then I will not have to pay for some irresponsible female to have an abortion. I will vote any public funding of abortion down. I will not pay for it

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal with the Catholic bishops which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services in the House health care bill.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-par nth_b_349596.html&cp

And add to that Iclardy, many points that other liberal commentators overlook, she is the best!

Rachel's show is fantastic. She is very much on top of the issues and I love that conservatives hate to hear her do her thing. Every time I have watched Rachel she has brought up important facts that most folks on the right will overlook, so Rachel keep doing what you are doing, America needs to hear it.

I find it funny that when I read the comments on this site I see a lot of conservative responses, hey folks you belong on Drudge or Fox News. Leave us so called "Socialist" alone.

Rachel this is my husband E-mail address and he is black. My comment are you are a hate monger, and you can say what is on your mind.However when the right speaks their opinion you call them a racist. This is America and we all have freedom of speech. Liberals like yourself think that you only have freedom of speech.Your one hour segment sicken me, because you think your opinion is correct and it matters most.

14.chris os (James-you keep saying Muslim, it is a radical Islamist who took those lives.
Islamic scholars say that terrorists are violating the Koran, a book of peace as the Koran states that you do not kill innocent people, you do not lie, you do not cheat and you do not destroy the property of other human beings.
But the Koran also states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.")

Hope it doesn't surprise you that infidels are transgressors to muslims. How is that for political correctness. Oopps, I forgot that this sect wants shariah law to replace the US Constitution. Shariah is a draconian hate filled, shame based nightmare. Women are whipped for not wearing bras. Adulterers, gays and apostates are subject to death...Any muslim that is not a radical muslim is not a practicing muslim.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

A Moderator has removed this comment due to a Terms of Service violation.

To add to that, Boehner pulled a huge boner!

James-you keep saying Muslim, it is a radical Islamist who took those lives.
Islamic scholars say that terrorists are violating the Koran, a book of peace as the Koran states that you do not kill innocent people, you do not lie, you do not cheat and you do not destroy the property of other human beings.
But the Koran also states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."
But people of any religion who use their religion to execute violence, will find the excuse to do do no matter what their specific holy books say.
Please do not persecute the Muslim population for this horrific crime.
And Carl and Inez, the main thrust of the segment about the reading from the Constitution (the document that the right throws into every debate and holds so sacred) was that it was the Declaration of Independence. That was funny!
Don't nit-pick and call names over such a small gaff (Rachel not knowing about the preamble). Whadya do, sit there and look for mistakes?
Stick to Fox and blog to them about their blatant twisting and spinning of every situation.

Rachel- I was very disappointed in your coverage of the Ft. Hood tragedy.This muslim was performing jihad.And if you need more tragic examples, perhaps you should report on Noor Almaleki or Rifqa Bary.

JIHAD ( ) . Lit. ''An effort, or a striving.'' A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims.

When an infidel's country is conquered by a Muslim ruler, its inhabitants are offered three alternatives:--

(1) The reception of Islam , in which case the conquered become enfranchised citizens of the Muslim state.

(2) The Payment of a poll-tax (Jizyah) , by which unbelievers in Islam obtain protection, and become Zimmis , provided they are not the idolaters of Arabia.

(3) Death by the sword , to those who will not pay the poll tax.

Sufi writers say that there are two Jihads: al-Jihadu 'l-Akbar , or ''the greater warfare,'' which is against one's own lusts; and al-Jihadu 'l-asghar , or ''the lesser warfare,'' against infidels.
[...more...]
Source: Jihad Entry in T.P. Hughes Dictionary of Islam

The muslim you interviewed was playing you with an ancient ploy called "taquayi"(sp?)(deliberate deception).As a women who strongly advocates human rights, I strongly recommend that you take a moment or two and educate yourself on the true nature of this draconian sect of supremacists.

the Constitution DOES have a Preamble, and I doth quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You are a Dumb Ass Hachel Maddog

How could you not know the Preamble is part of the Constitution? Is this just another way of media rewriting history for show? Shame on you, please correct this comment on air. I think it's bad enough the schools aren't doing their jobs but when celebrities are spewing misinformation what chance does this country have?

Don't forget your own blunder Rachael, the US Constitution DOES have a Preamble in it.

Yes - they reveal only the depth of their greed and hatred. This issue really all boils down to our nation deciding who we are going to be for each other - how we are going to relate. What it means to be a Conservative today is to hold the every-man-for-himself point of view. It's the "drowning rat" model of society, where there are only so many spots on the lifeboat and everyone fights and kicks to get a spot on the boat. Because the free market is a comptetition after all - there will be losers. The market will always determine a poor class and a 2% or so rate of unemployement. But they are right in some sense that 'human rights,' by definition, has not included health care. As a people, we are confused about this. 'Human rights' did not come along until there was commerce. It is the driving engine of capitalism, because without the ability to "keep our stuff" - no-one works. Prior to the advent of commerce, we survived by bare subsistence farming. We had feudalism - and that worked fine. What that means, though, is that the reality of 'human rights' is not sufficient to managment of our human affairs - not by a long shot. In the days of the robber barons, those who worked 16 horus days for wages sufficient only to live malnourished and in rags had their 'human rights' fully protected. The question is how do we rather preserve the free market and at the same time structure society so that the basic survival and essential quality of life needs are met for everyone? This, of course, is far too sane and difficult a conversation for any conservative minded person today. I would point out that Jesus Christ introduced the notion that each human life is sacred - and commanded that our job is to love and serve each other - and introduced this notion 1500+ years before anyone saw the need to invent 'human rights.' Wouldn't it be amazing if conservatives in this country would adopt a consistently Christian political agenda, and not just the agenda that didn't cost them any money.

What continually irritates me is the signage. One minute Obama is a Marxist or Communist. The next he's Hitler. Do any of these people even know what these terms mean? They seem to just grab 'bad' terms at random and apply them without any thought at all. Then we have the sign about Dachau 1945. While I appreciate that Rachel didn't want to go any further on that one, I can't help it.

Do these people really want to equate the mass murder in Nazi concentration camps to the current health care reform bill? Do they really think this makes sense? It is insulting and demeaning to all those who died in these camps. And it's a testament to the moral bankruptcy of those who created and cheered this sign.

These protests come off, not as a demand to be heard, but as simply a demand that we do what they say. Isn't this what they accuse the Administration of?

- Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com/

Yes Craig - this whole 'freedom' issue is a joke. In part, it appears they feel the democratic process by which we structure out society is fine only if their side wins. Democracy is wonderful so long as conservatives are in power apparently. The bigger issue though, so far as I can tell from my conversations with my conservative friends - most of whom are wealthy professionals by the way - is that this is about money and money only. These people have a fundamentally different pschological profile - and while we are friends, politics is off limits when we entertain. These people are so desperately penurious - their status and survival apparently being at stake in their minds with every dollar of their money - that they experience actual hatred toward anyone who would suggest even a little of it go to help pay for health care for others. Their "rugged individualism," so far as I can tell, is but a euphemism for an
"every-man-for-himself" social ideology. They believe they have an inherent right to every dime they earn, and that any taking of that money for taxation is an infringement on their 'rights.' They have little community awareness - little sense of connectedness. they don't appreciate that it takes a community of people to create the society we live in. They think that the free market is somehow sacred, and determines the structure of society rightly, even if the vagaries of the market determine that labor earn only enough money to eat dog food and die in the gutter for lack of health care. They are wrong. But they adopt any interpretation, no matter how ridiculous, to justify their desperate greed. In truth, the free market needs regulation - without it, weatth concentrates into fewer and fewer hands; wealth uses it's power to torpedo competition, rig markets, and othewise manipulate policy to its own advantage. Of course, the newest innovation is to use wealth to manipulate a gullible and greedy American public, to fan the flames of ignorant hatred, to get them to vote the consevative line, so that behind the backs of those so manipulated, they can manipulate policy and law to their own ends.

Actually, Rachel, the Constitution does have a preamble, but the document quoted was the Declaration of Independence, as you said. The Preamble states that one of the goals of the founders was to "promote the general welfare," which seems to me a justification for improving citizens' access to quality health care. I am baffled as to why the Right thinks transferring the health care paperwork to the government infringes on anyone's freedom. A single payer plan, even if it costs a little more, would eliminate co-payments, pre-existing conditions, and deductibles, not to mention medical bankruptcies, and it would enhance our freedoms because we could actually change jobs and take our health care plans with us. Whose freedoms are reduced? The insurance companies, who would no longer be able to fleece the public while denying health insurance claims and letting policy holders die. They don't even need death panels; life or death decisions can be made by a single individual whose job it is to save money for the company. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D, NY) tells us that the director of Medicare earns $150,000 per year, while insurance CEOs make milliions. Where do their fortunes come from? Policy holders.

I just saw a commercial on Fox in which they were selling Palin's book for less than 5 bucks. LOL

If this what America wants why did they not vote them in? Just asking?

You KNOW that Michele Bachmann is sooooo mad about the Fort Hood shooting because it knocked her little party off the front page.

UHC gave their Washington division the day off.

Hahaha What a bunch of clowns.
Did "hundreds" show up-because as they did on 9/12, FOX will report "millions" did.
Did not see it reported nationally, but 8 residents of CT were at LIEberman's office chanting "Work for Connecticut, not for Aetna".They were forcefully removed by security.