Victoria Jackson Says Rush should run the country!

[rebelliousscot]

Victoria Jackson, former "Saturday Night Live" cast member and Al Franken hater, went on Sean Hannity's show on Monday night. She started by cheering "Fox News, yay! The only one with the truth! Yay!" And ended by saying Rush, Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity should run the country, but it was her words in between that really shocked her fellow panelist, Fox News contributor Bob Beckel.

"My motivation is gone, because [Obama] will punish me if I'm successful. That's how you start communism, is just take -- Cuba. Obama wants to be Castro."

At this point Beckel could only say, "What?" But luckily Sean Hannity came to her defense at that vicious attack saying, "He wants to redistribute the wealth." As the Huffington Post has previously reported, this is not the first time Jackson went on Fox News and called Obama a communist.

She went on to discuss how she became politically interested, saying:

"Well, I've never been involved in politics. 'Cuz it's just neh neh neh, neh neh neh. But all of a sudden it was, it was: Oh, Hillary Clinton is a socialist, she wants to socialize medicine. Well, I'll have to vote against her. And then all of a sudden a communist appears! Out of nowhere! And that's when I started to get involved. So I did research. Uh, black liberation theology, his church, is Marxist. And his professors are Marxist. Redistribute the wealth --"

At this, Beckel seems genuinely worried for her, trying to reassure her that Obama is not a Communist and that she'll be fine.

[deliciousdemon]

This actually happened? She was a SNLer and she has these sorts of views, I thought it was a giant charade.

Of course I did a quick google search and found out she is indeed a nutter.

EDIT:

Check out this poem from her site

Walking my fluffy little dogs up the canyon
Wondering "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?!"
I'm suddenly stopped
By a brave and menacing coyote

He wants to eat my dogs
I raise my arms to flap him away
He looks me in the eye

I flap again and scream

He slowly and reluctantly saunters away
He looks back one last time
The devil in his eye

And there is the answer to my question.

It's utter shit of course.

[ironbite]

She's as airheaded as she sounds.

Ironbite-Rush, Palin, and Hannity would take away all her rights in a heartbeat.

[schizophonic]

And she would be there arguing why it's a good thing.

Along with about 30% of the population.

[m52nickerson]

Mar 13, 2009 11:45:40 GMT -5 ironbite said:

She's as airheaded as she sounds.

Or she is brilliant, showing that it is the stupid people who follow and agree with the likes of Boss Limbaugh.

[Pasta]

That poem was wicked... Really, what did I do to deserve tha- Oh yeah, the canary incident.

[Green-Eyed Lilo]

Obama will punish her for being successful, so her motivation is gone? Well, that explains a couple months of her post-SNL career, but what about the rest of it?

Also, she writes poetry like a Vogon. (I do, too, but I'm not dumb enough to show everybody.)

[MozMode]

Mar 13, 2009 11:45:40 GMT -5 ironbite said:

She's as airheaded as she sounds.

Ironbite-Rush, Palin, and Hannity would take away all her rights in a heartbeat.

Yes....yes she is.

[stormwarden]

Mar 13, 2009 12:42:15 GMT -5 Green-Eyed Lilo said:

Obama will punish her for being successful, so her motivation is gone? Well, that explains a couple months of her post-SNL career, but what about the rest of it?

Also, she writes poetry like a Vogon. (I do, too, but I'm not dumb enough to show everybody.)

Wow...that is torture on the purest level. I had to listen to a Vogon's poetry once, and I am sure it was less painful than her stupidity.

I am just stunned by the level of stupidity of this. I am sure I wouldn't want a bunch of talking heads running this country.

[devilschaplain2]

Silly Republicunts, a 3% tax increase on those making over $250,000 annually is NOT socialism or Communism. Adam Smith was a capitalist and wrote this in his book "The Wealth of Nations":

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

In other words, these guys are clowns...

[ltfred]

Adam Smith actually believed none of the things modern neo-liberals have assigned to him. He thought that social wefare programs (like cumpulsory government funded education) were good ideas, along with progressive taxation, and he considered the working class the bedrock of society. He also thought that tarrifs, ect, were necessary for development of an infant economy. His position was that Britain's economy was developed at the time of writing, at which point they would be best off allowing the market to naturally create optimum pricing. His economic theory has always reminded me of Darwin's. They're both 'blind watchmakers' if you will.

In fact, when the University of Chicago reprinted his 'Wealth' they had to severely cut it down in order for it to concur with their party line.

[devilschaplain2]

Mar 14, 2009 4:30:22 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Adam Smith actually believed none of the things modern neo-liberals have assigned to him. He thought that social wefare programs (like cumpulsory government funded education) were good ideas, along with progressive taxation, and he considered the working class the bedrock of society. He also thought that tarrifs, ect, were necessary for development of an infant economy. His position was that Britain's economy was developed at the time of writing, at which point they would be best off allowing the market to naturally create optimum pricing. His economic theory has always reminded me of Darwin's. They're both 'blind watchmakers' if you will.

In fact, when the University of Chicago reprinted his 'Wealth' they had to severely cut it down in order for it to concur with their party line.

Ah, the Chicago School.....because their economic policies worked so well in Chile, right?