The Young Turks: Al Gore, Breathable Booze and Shade Balls

Source:The Daily Review

Al Gore for president? Why, would be my question about that. A simple one word question about that. "Vote for Al Gore for president, again and I"ll do", what exactly? Al Gore, the man who lost the presidency to a college frat brat, who thought he was still at Yale and perhaps failed his freshmen year 22 years in a row and suddenly wakes up at the age of 40 and realizes he now has kids, is married and needs a full-time job that will support his family. Who gets into politics, because his father is George H.W. Bush. And I'm speaking about George W. Bush of course.

Al Gore, is not Dick Nixon, or even Bill Clinton. He's someone whose more than capable of being happy in the private sector and making a lot of money and speaking about issues that he cares about and writing about them. He wanted to be president in the 1980s and 1990s, which is why he runs in 2000 and as Vice President to a very popular President Clinton and with almost no opposition in the party to him, he had the perfect opportunity to be President of the United States, but he blew it. It took him about six months to figure out what type of presidential campaign he was going to run in 2000.

If Al Gore, wants to be Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of State, National Security Director, by all means he's qualified for any of those positions and would serve the next Democratic president very well. But run again for president when the avenue to get there is not clear unlike in 2000 when you were a heavy favorite to beat Joe Average who lives on Main street in Smithville, whose a swell kind of guy and everything and everyone's favorite drinking partner at the local tavern and hardest worker at the factory, when he's sober and I'm thinking of George W. Bush obviously as far as what G.W. brought to that campaign as far as qualifications, doesn't make sense to me.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: 'Jerry Seinfeld Caught By The Sensitivity Police'

Source:The Young Turks- Comedian Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with political correctness?" LOL

Source:The New Democrat

"Apparently, the bar for racial insensitivity has now been lowered so much that one can be branded with the scarlet "R" for insisting that racial and gender identity issues should be irrelevant in certain circumstances. Merely asserting that merit, and not demographic identifiers which result from accidents of birth, should carry more weight is enough to offend those for whom racial and gender-based grievances suffice for a raison d'être.

Take, for example, Gawker's Kyle Chayka, who objected to comedic legend Jerry Seinfeld's response to a question the performer was asked about his web series, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, primarily featuring young, white men.

"It really pisses me off," Seinfeld said of the logic behind that question.

"People think that it's the census or something," he observed of comedy in general. "It's gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares?""* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down."

From The Young Turks 

Damn! I actually agree with both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur on the same show, about the same topic. They both just scored a touchdown and converted a two-point conversion in the liberal column for me. Maybe they aren’t as radical and socialist as I give them credit, or blame for. Depending on your perspective.

It would be one thing if Jerry Seinfeld was just talking to comedians of one race, (in this case Caucasian) because that is the only people he wants to talk to. But that is not what this is about. He interviews people he thinks are funny. And in this case the recent comedians he spoke to, all happened to be Caucasian.

It would be one thing if Jerry said (and I can call him Jerry since I’m his German nephew whose not a Nazi) it would be one thing if Jerry said: “Those African-Americans, (or something else) always bitching about how life is tough in America. They can’t take a joke. I’ve seen Marxist dictators with bigger sense of humors. I know this since I interviewed them. If they think they got it so bad in America, why don’t they go back to Africa.”

But Jerry didn’t say anything like that and is not talking to people based on race, or ethnicity. He simply wants to talk to people who make him laugh. This current group he found just happen to all be from the same race.

And oh by the way: if lets say Chris Rock was doing a show and he only interviewed African-American male comedians, no one would be making an issue of this. Well maybe Breitbart, or Fox News. This same argument could be made against affirmative action. Why not just go where the talent is and just judge people as individuals and let the most qualified people regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, get the best jobs. And leave whatever is left for the wannabes of all races, ethnicities, male, female, who gives a damn!

There are times when one group of people, (fill in the blank which group that is) looks a little better than other groups as far as having their members being part of what’s happening in America. That is the way freedom and private enterprise works.

Cenk Uygur made another great point and its the boy who cried wolf analogy. That real racism, is racism. When people are being denied access in life and given harsher treatment simply because of their race, that’s racism. But when you try to apply that label to anything you can think of to try to make people especially who aren’t minorities in this country, look like bigots and have no real evidence of the charge that you’re making, you become the boy, or girl who cries wolf. You end up looking worst than real bigots and sure as hell than the person that you want to look like a bigot.

Crying wolf is like swinging for the fences, (to use a baseball analogy) when you’re a 150 pound shortstop who has never a hit a home run in your life, even in Little League. And every part of the outfield is at least 400 feet away: it doesn’t work.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Ben Affleck Angrily Defends Islam Against Bill Maher/Sam Harris'

Source:The Young Turks- Actor & Left-Wing PC Warrior Ben Affleck, on Real Time With Bill Maher, claiming that Islam is a race. Not really, but that's what he implied when he said that criticizing Islam is racist, which is false on at least two levels.

Source:The New Democrat

"Ben Affleck was quick to call out what he felt was Bill Maher's "gross, racist, disgusting," ideas about Islam during a heated debate. The "Gone Girl" star appeared on "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday and things got heavy when the late night talk show host continued his conversation about Islam, which he started the week before. "You and I have been trying to make the case that liberals need to stand up for liberal principles," Maher said to fellow panelist, author Sam Harris."* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks 

"Ben Affleck was quick to call out what he felt was Bill Maher's "gross, racist, disgusting," ideas about Islam during a heated debate. The "Gone Girl" star appeared on "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday and things got heavy when the late night talk show host continued his conversation about Islam, which he started the week before." 

From The New York Daily News

Just to correct Ben Affleck: any criticism against Islam or Muslims is not racist. Why, because Islam is not a race, but a religion. I pointed this out last night, but the far-left has decided that any criticism against Islam is racist, okay bigoted, because again Islam is not a race. 

If you want to talk about ignorance on the Far-Right which this blog has and will continue to do, great, but don’t leave out the Far-Left that has a bad habit of saying things that are simply not true.

Now why has the Far-Left decided that any criticism against Islam right or left is, well bigoted? Because Islam is not Christianity and Muslims tend to be something other than Caucasian and especially don’t tend to be Anglo or of Western European decent. There are Caucasian-Muslims, but they tend to come from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, like in the Slavic countries. 

In the small fringe world of the Far-Left, maybe 10-15 percent of the population, it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Christian-Right, especially Caucasians. But if you attack a non-Christian, non-western religion, you are a bigot.

The Far-Left or Fascist-Left with their whole political correctness movement has decided that outlawing speech they find offensive, is simply not practical. The whole First Amendment gets in their way on that. So what they’ve decided that if they can’t shut people up through government force, they’ll try to shut people up through protest and lawsuit and screaming at people, to prevent people even on the Left like Sam Harris and Bill Maher, from making their case.

The Young Turks: Kissing Representative Vance McAllister Caught on Camera

Source:The New Democrat

Perhaps the new way to describe the Christian Right in America is to call them the "Do What I Say Not What I do Right."  Perhaps the so-called the "Family Values Coalition" (which has as much meaning as "jumbo shrimp") should be called the "Moral in Public Coalition" or the "What We Do in Private is our Business and what other Americans do in Private is our Business Too Coalition."  Because of our morality and honesty we know best how each and every American should live their own lives.  How about "The Give Me a Break Coalition?"

There's a powerful religious/political block in the United States called the Christian Right or Religious Right. A lot of these people, despite their bigoted views, are otherwise good people.  They are loyal to their spouses, loyal to their kids, volunteer for their communities, help the less-fortunate and a lot of other things that make people good. This voting block, at least in the South and rural America, is usually big enough to decide whether Republicans are politically successful or not.

But here's a perfect example of why religion shouldn't be mixed with politics.  I'm not saying that religious people shouldn't be active in politics but that when religion gets mixed into your political philosophy, or becomes your political philosophy as with the Christian Right, it becomes a big problem. Then your politics tend to oppose the constitutional rights of other Americans.  They have constitutional rights to live their own lives as they choose, because of the rights of privacy, free speech, and freedom of religion, even if their choices go against your religious beliefs.  Attempting to encode your religious beliefs in law, as in "Right to Life," infringes the constitutional rights of citizens who do not agree with you.

But I can't end this post without addressing the hypocrisy of politicians who claim to live by moral or family values.  What does that mean?  That's like hearing Republicans say that they believe in individual freedom and responsibility.  Individual freedom and responsibility for whom to do what? They tend to leave out the answers to these questions when speaking in public.  In private, they do what makes them happy and try not to get caught.

Maybe the so-called Moral or Family Values Coalition should say we believe this is how other Americans should live their lives.  If you don't live your life as we tell you to do, we are going to label you as immoral or Un-American, even if we do the same things you're doing.

The Republican Party needs this religious fringe because they can't be politically successful without it.  They have to pretend to care about their issues or they'll not win elections.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'President Obama Sets Bear Trap, Republicans Walk Right Into It'

Source: The Young Turks- Fox News, talking about President Barack Obama.

Source: The New Democrat

"Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Tuesday, where he called on Congress to end discriminatory workplace practices that "belong in a Mad Men episode" Fox News host Martha MacCallum proclaimed on the program American's Newsroom that women did not want special laws ensuring equal for equal work because they already were compensated "exactly what they're worth." On the Fox program, two men, liberal radio host Alan Colmes and Fox News host Tucker Carlson, debated equal pay for women. Carlson assertedthat women actually made more than men if the time they "voluntarily" took off work to raise children was factored in. "The numbers don't lie," he insisted...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down."

From The Young Turks

The current Republican governing policy is, “if Democrats are for it, we are against it, even if we are for it, or were once in favor of it”. And even offered it in health care reform a perfect example of that where the Affordable Care Act actually has a lot of good conservative ideas like the health care mandate and the health care market place in it. Which is the main reason why there hasn’t been much compromise in Congress between the House and Senate because when Democrats say okay we’ll agree to that, the House GOP just moves the ball further to get more compromises.

Then instead of Republicans saying okay let’s do that, Republicans just move the ball and say well, “if Democrats are willing to give us this, we can get them to give us this as well and hold off on a deal”. The deficit reduction negotiations are a perfect example of this where Democrats have put entitlement reform on the table and what Republicans is do is to say well, “if they will do that, then they’ll take exactly what type of entitlement reform we are interested in”. Like cutting Social Security benefits to future retirees or cutting benefits to current beneficiaries.

The only goal Republicans have right now is absolute power. And to accomplish this, they need to hold onto the House and 2014 and retake the Senate in 2014. To give them a united Republican Congress and to win back the White House in 2016 as well. While hanging onto Congress and the hard right partisan Republicans in the House and Senate have one clear strategy. “If Democrats are for it, it must be a bad idea even if it is our idea. So we are only going to put policies that are as far to the right as possible to get our partisan right-wing base behind us to avoid primary challenges”.

Which leaves us with gridlock when you have the Republican Leadership saying no to anything that the Democratic Leadership especially in the Senate and White House say yes to. Because now Democrats are in a position where they are only negotiating with themselves. Trying to find more moderate members in Congress to go along with some of these more conservative ideas in broader packages, while not losing any of their more, well lets say progressive members. Instead of negotiating with their own caucus’ in the House and Senate, along with Congressional Republicans.

The Young Turks: 'Worst NBA Players of All Time to Win Championship'

Source:The Young Turks- don't ask me who the crazy man trying to dance is.

Source:The Daily Journal 

"The list is filled with plenty of NBA players that are simply undeserving of holding up the Larry O'Brien trophy. To name a few: Dexter Pittman, Eddy Curry, Luke Walton and Adam Morrisson. Hear who is on our list and let us know who you think is the WORST basketball player to win an NBA championship... 

From The Young Turks 

For me, it would be former Boston Celtics center Greg Kite from the mid and late 1980s. Who was a solid backup center as far as rebounding and post defense. But this isn’t the list of worst players to ever play in the NBA, but to win the NBA Championship. And for me at least off the top of my head Greg Kite was the Celtics third-string center at this point. Because he was basically no offensive threat at all who had no outside shot. And even had trouble making shots close to the basket when he was open and got a pass from Larry Bird or someone else. Greg Kite even had trouble putting offensive rebounds back in the basket as well. Who was a third-string center, so that alone says a lot.

The list of the players that the people on this show listed, are perhaps the worst players to win an NBA championship in the last fourteen years, or since 2000. And perhaps that is because their knowledge of NBA basketball only goes back that far. But the NBA Finals has been around since 1948 or so. So their list isn’t very deep. 

When you put lists together that are about the history of the NBA or any other sports league, it's good to have people around who are familiar with the 20th Century, or at least 20th Century sports, when most of the history in these leagues were made. Otherwise just call your list: "The Worst 10 Players in The Last 10 Years" and then see whose actually interested in that.

The Young Turks: John Iadarola: 'Ted Cruz "Filibuster" On Obamacare'

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) speaking at length (to quote John Ivarola) about ObamaCare.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Ted Cruz finally released his grip on the Senate floor after more than 21 hours of speaking about the need to defund Obamacare.

The Texas Republican seized control of the Senate floor on Tuesday about 2:42 p.m. vowing to "speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand." Cruz could have spoken all the way up to a 1 p.m. procedural vote on moving spending bill forward, but he relented at noon.".* John Iadarola (TYT University, The Common Room) breaks it down on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks

Where Senator Ted Cruz's speech about ObamaCare was a filibuster, or a crazy man with nothing better to do, then to go down to the U.S. Senate floor and prevent the presiding officer of the Senate from going home to get some much needed sleep, (like a selfish person, or something) Senator Cruz proved one point. He can speak for hours and hours about nothing, add nothing to an already controversial debate about ObamaCare. And apparently do this leaving plenty of coffee and candy bars for everyone else in Washington.

The Young Turks: ‘Martin Luther King Was a Republican?’

Source:The Young Turks- Dr. Martin L. King was a Republican. Also in the news: Reverend's Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, have both come out in favor of same-sex-marriage. And have announced they've been in love with each other for years. LOL

Source:FreeState MD

“Many people talk about the “fact” that King was a Republican. It is asserted incessantly by conservatives on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, especially in the lead up to today’s 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. The claim is most prominently advanced by King’s niece, Republican activist Alveda King. Over the years, conservative groups have purchased billboards making the claim. Second, Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Republican. Or a Democrat. King was not a partisan and never endorsed any political candidate…”.* Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, John Iadarola (host of TYT University and Common Room), and Dave Rubin (host of The Rubin Report) break it down on The Young Turks."

From The Young Turks

Pre-1964 or so I could see why Martin King was a Republican. Lets face it, the GOP was home to an overwhelming amount of African-Americans. Because of the Civil War, the freeing of the African slaves, Abraham Lincoln, etc. And then go up to the 1950s and 60s, which party is the civil rights party? The Republican Party and their Northern Progressives, especially in Congress. Who without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Law doesn’t pass. Those laws would’ve not of passed in the House and Senate without Northern and Midwestern Progressive and Conservative Republicans. Like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen.

Ideologically except for civil rights, its hard to imagine how MLK would’ve fit into the Republican Party. They did have a progressive faction, but that was about civil rights, infrastructure, environmental protection and to a certain extent the safety net for people who truly needed it. But MLK was much more social democratic in nature, especially economically and when it came to civil rights and racial equality in general. And he was a dove and non-interventionist when it came to foreign policy and national security. And consistently spoke out against the size of the American defense budget and our involvement oversees. But without putting down American serviceman and women. Unlike the New Left of the late 1960s.

I can’t imagine Dr. King as a Republican or Democrat back then and perhaps not today. Today I could see him putting down Democrats as giving up on the poor and less-fortunate over things like Welfare to Work. And not doing enough to address the income gap and eliminate what he and others see as the Military Industrial Complex and Prison Industrial Complex. If Dr. King were a Democrat today, he would’ve been a member of the Progressive Caucus and perhaps one of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street, or creating his own social democratic movement. Or perhaps not a Democrat at all and a member of the Green Party or Democratic Socialists USA. He was very Left on economic policy and when it came to national security as well, for a lot of center-left Democrats.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- Bill O’Reilly: 'The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr.'

Source:The Young Turks- Bill giving The O'Reilly Finger to Dr. Martin L. King.

Source:FreeState MD 

"Bill O'Reilly used the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's I Have A Dream speech to attack African Americans and claim that MLK was pro-right wing. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

So I guess you couldn't have your own cable talk show, if you weren't also a psychic and mindreader. Because apparently Bill O'Reilly has some super ability to go into dead people's minds and read what they would think 45 years after their death. Which is apparently that Bill O'Reilly was doing about Dr. Martin Luther King. A man by the way, that Mr. O'Reilly never even met, let was able to ever talk too. 

I don’t know where Bill O’Reilly gets the 75% of African-American babies being born out-of-wedlock. But he does have a point about the state of the current African-American community. And would have problems with it and disagreements with the community. And would want to see more done so this community doesn’t have more poverty, less education, fewer fathers in the households, more crime and murders and people in prison than the rest of the country as a whole.

But I guess it wouldn’t be The O’Reilly Finger, I mean Factor, if Billy wasn’t just stating the obvious and emphasizing the negative. Fifty-years after the I Have a Dream speech, fewer African-Americans now live in poverty, more go to school and finish school, graduate from college, live in the middle class. African-Americans. Still not doing as well as Caucasians, as well as Asians, regardless of ethnicity, and perhaps Latinos, again regardless of race or ethnicity. And that is still the challenge for this community to come to par with the rest of the country and not have negative statistics that are twice the average of the entire country.

To accomplish this, more African-Americans and Americans in general in poverty, need to go to good schools, finish school, further their education, not have kids until they’re personally and financially ready to take care of them and then actually raise their kids. And this get to men in the community that are man enough to create babies and life, but not man enough to raise their own kids. And leave that to the mother who isn’t doing very well herself, yet ready to raise kids all by herself.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- ‘Harry Reid Full Of Cat Shit On Filibuster Nuclear Option’

Source:The Young Turks- U.S. Senate Leaders Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) and Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Seriously, is this the best we can do to lead the U.S. Senate? 

Source:FreeState MD 

“… Reid said he is prepared to use the “nuclear option” should Republicans not agree to approve the seven nominees. Current rules require 67 votes to change Senate rules, but the Nevada senator’s move would allow for the change in Senate filibuster procedure with a simple majority of 51 votes.

‘I’m going to go to the floor on Tuesday and do what I need to do so this doesn’t happen anymore,’ Reid said about the potential blocking of nominees.”*

Cenk Uygur breaks it down.” 

From The Young Turks 

I was watching a little of C-SPAN today before I went bike riding and went out and did what I needed to do. Why, because I’m a political junky who is interested in other things than the George Zimmerman case. And actually interested in important news that affects the country and that makes me un-American, then so be it.

C-SPAN was showing a debate in the U.S. Senate and for all of you Zimmerman trial junkies who are perhaps reading this blog by accident, thinking this was also about George Zimmerman, one turn off your TV. 

But C-SPAN is the network that covers the United States Congress and other current affairs events that are going on the country. And C-SPAN was showing an old Senate debate from 2005 when the then Senate Republican majority and the last one that they’ve had wanted to eliminate the filibuster on executive appointments. I was watching this old Senate debate and couldn’t, but help notice the hypocrisy on both sides.

If I had to guess there was more hypocrisy coming from the Republican side led by then Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell. Who is now of course the Minority Leader a job he’s had since 2007 when Democrats took control of Congress. And if I had to bet there’s probably more hypocrisy coming from Senate Republicans than Democrats. But if this were some crazy contest it would be a nail biter. I mean it would be like trying to decide which is redder: or the red apple or tomato? How would you and besides why would you care?

Neither side has been very responsible here. But guess what, this is Congress and why would the Senate be responsible anyway, they don’t work for a living. Neither does the House of Representatives in too many cases as well. But the same people led by Mitch McConnell today Senator Orin Hatch and Senator Jeff Sessions all members of the Judiciary Committee and then Senate Leader Bill Frist who first proposed the so-called nuclear-option, are now saying this is a power grab by Senate Democrats and they’re the ones being unfair.

“Sure, if we do this, we’re acting in the best interest of our party, I mean country. But when the other side does it, it is a complete abuse of power and unconstitutional”. I mean seriously anyone who is actually familiar with Congress, still wondering why they have a ten-percent approval rating? And who are these ten-percent anyway? Any of them not living in mental hospitals and not in comas. Perhaps whoever does these polls, counts dead people. You know, the way they vote in Illinois, Louisiana and New Jersey.

Where do Congress people come up with these labels? “We’re saying the Democratic obstructionism is out of control. And we need to do away with the filibuster? Are now saying that: “The filibuster is a check on absolute power in America”. On the Democratic side back in 2005 led by then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid who is now of course the Leader to go along with Senator Chuck Schumer who is also on the Judiciary Committee to go along with Senator Jack Reid, Senator Evan Bayh and others, those Democrats were saying eliminating the Senate filibuster would be a power grab.

“We’re saying that eliminating the filibuster would be an abuse of power and go against two-hundred years of Senate tradition and so-forth”. Wait, aren’t these Democrats supposed to be the Liberals, what do they care about tradition?

But now Senate Democrats are saying that: “The filibuster now represents ruling by minority. With one minority party in this case the Senate Republican Conference led by Mitch McConnell now running and having veto say on how the executive and judicial branches can now operate. When instead they are just supposed to be one voice and a minority voice at that”.

The point being that there’s enough hypocrisy and hypocritical people (to be nice) bullshit artists (to be accurate) here to form their own national club of bullshit artists. “We’re a club that creates and promotes bullshit across the country”. Apparently the agriculture sector is really struggling and then they need to create this national club, because they aren’t producing enough bullshit. Apparently Winnie the Bull is sick or something.

This club wouldn’t need any other members because all the available spaces would be filled by the United States Senate and an example of why ninety-percent of Americans dislike Congress. Because we have a lot of Senators like this. This whole Senate filibuster debate is all about “do what I say not what I do. Forget about my past record because this is what is important now and what I believe in”. They sound like your parents, right.

Which of course is the easiest near advantage that they can use against the other side and hit them as hard as they can with it until they lose power. Apparently unaware that will be used against them once they are out of power. Rather than doing what is best for the Senate and respecting the true role of the Senate as the upper chamber in Congress and its role in the Federal Government.

The Young Turks: 'Are African Americans Allowed To Criticize President Obama?'

To answer The Young Turks question: Apparently so because Cornel West and other far-leftist African Americans are criticizing President Obama all the time and accusing the President of not being "black enough", whatever the hell that means.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: 'Liberal Bias? CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien Accused by Right-Wing'

Source:The Young Turks- Soledad O'Brien & John Sununu.

“CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien struck back at critics who objected to her reading from a document printed from what they called a liberal website — yet not citing her source — while interviewing an operative for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on the topic of Medicare. O’Brien was substitute-hosting on Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday when she was seen flipping through a story from the website Talking Points Memo during a segment with Romney campaign adviser Barbara Comstock. Conservative media, most notably Rush Limbaugh, mocked the news anchor for what they perceived to be a journalistic transgression…

From The Young Turks

If you’ve followed the career of CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien who’s also worked at NBC News and I’m sure other places and you don’t look at it from left, or right, but you judge her career instead, especially if you look at her documentaries and panel discussions, its, pretty clear she comes at her job from a political viewpoint.

The whole series Black and Brown in America is a good example of that. I’m not saying she’s not qualified, or doesn’t do a good job, but she approaches issues from the left and would probably be better suited for being on MSNBC than CNN.

Soledad, could be the Bill O’Reilly of NBC News, who takes on people in power from both sides, but also has an ideological viewpoint. That she’s not afraid to make public, but goes after people on both sides.

To give you an example of Bill O’Reilly: back in the summer of 2003, when it was discovered that there wasn’t any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we went to war there, based on bogus evidence (to put it nicely) O’Reilly announced he was done with President Bush. O’Reilly announced he was done with President Bush and was no longer going to carry his water for him. He goes after people on both sides, but is definitely a right-winger himself, but not a puppet.

Well, Soledad O’Brien could be that watchdog for the left and even take on leftists. When she feels she should, which I’m sure he has in the past. She could be Mike Wallace, or Ted Koppel of CNN. Someone who goes after people in power. Not to bring people down, but to hold them accountable and make them back up their argument and policies, or pay a price for it.

As far as Soledad O’Brien’s interview with John Sununu Sr..: )President H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff, as well as former Governor of New Hampshire) I think she did a good job. Politicians don’t like to be asked anything that could put them on the defensive and get them off of their talking points. When they do interviews like this, they see their role as speaking up for the candidates they support and speaking out against the candidates they oppose. And anything that’s a tough question which is what anchors get paid to do if they are news anchors which is what Soledad is.

Good anchors put politicians on the defensive when they feel they need to, so what they do instead of answering the questions, is to respond by taking it out on the anchor. For example: “how can you ask me that question, when we should be talking about Joe Jones horrible foreign policy and my candidate’s great record at creating jobs and balancing budgets?” Or whatever.’ Soledad was quoting off of Mitt Romney’s website and wanted a response from Governor Sununu about it.

Is there a leftist bias in the media whether it’s liberal or leftist, of course there is. Just like there’s a rightist bias in the media as well coming from the Tea Party, which is why people who are interested in the news, shouldn’t put all of their eggs in one basket (so to speak) when it comes to gathering their news. And if you are a regular viewer of MSNBC or FNC, I suggest you checkout other news networks, so you can get all the truth, instead of part of it.

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: Freakin Ridiculous Fine For Swearing

Source:The Young Turks- TYT Baby Girl, Ana Kasparian: freakin ticked off about the Middleborough fine for swearing. LOL

"If you swear in public in Middleborough Massachusetts you can expect to be fined. Is cussing protected under free speech? Should the ACLU get involved? Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss this bullshit on The Young Turks."

From The Young Turks

Warning! To all of you sensitive viewers who are offended by cussing, you may want to close your eyes as you attempt to read this post. Because it may have language inappropriate for your sensitive eyes and brain.

If fining people for what they say in public (and I’m talking about what people say to each other, we obviously don’t have a constitutional right to threaten people, but that’s not what this is about) that’s not threatening especially when they are angry and have a right to be or are inpatient, if fining people for blowing off steam (to put it mildly) is not a violation of the First Amendment, the constitutional right to free speech, then the First Amendment is useless. And should be thrown out and we no longer live in a liberal democracy, but a police state.

A police state seems to be what some Americans (Left & Right) would like us to be so we can become what we say we are against and get on other countries for being. Fines for foul language, perhaps they make sense on TV, especially for kids who don’t understand that language yet. And we don’t want them cussing out their parents and teachers and that sort of thing and hopefully vice-versa, all right, I can go along with that. But fining people for what they say on the streets, even when they aren’t cussing at anyone in particular, is fucking bullshit. (And I already put out the warning so don’t get on me for that now)

For someone in my age range and generation, I don’t cuss very often. People now judge other people for how much they cuss. You’ll have a hard time finding a comedian under fifty today who doesn’t fucking cuss their ass off when performing and in general. They do it to sound cool and to be funny. For a lot of people cussing is a way of communication, that’s how they talk, you won’t find a hit fictional show on cable (and not just HBO) that doesn’t have a tone of cussing. A shit load even, (if you prefer) because they want their shows to sound cool.

Cussing is how you communicate to young people today. For me cussing is a form of expression, I cuss to express anger, or amazement. Like: “holy shit that building is huge!” Or: "Holy shit! That guy is fat!" (to use as examples) But I’m not one whose blown away by things like that very often and a pretty even-tempered guy and will say what the hell, or get the hell out of here, that sort of thing, instead of what the fuck. So when I do drop F or S Bombs, you know I meant it and not just trying to sound cool.

But just because I don’t fucking cuss my ass off on a regular basis, doesn’t mean I believe others should be fined when they do. Because that’s just plain, God Damn, fucking stupid! (Hopefully that's as repetitive as I can get) 

Is your life so fucking boring that you have to regulate what comes out of other people’s mouths, when they aren’t threatening, or libeling people, or yelling fire in a crowded place? 

Is your thumb so far of your fucking ass, you don’t have anything better to do with your time? 

That pretty much sums up how I feel about this Massachusetts so-called public decency law. 

 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz- 'O.J. Simpson Is Innocent According To New Book'

"Via The LA Times: "In the new book "O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It," author-investigator William C. Dear asserts that he knows who killed Nicole Brown Simpson. As you can guess from the title, he believes it was not O.J. Simpson: He claims it was Jason Simpson, the former football star's son...".* Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz discuss on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks 

"In the new book "O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It," author-investigator William C. Dear asserts that he knows who killed Nicole Brown Simpson. As you can guess from the title, he believes it was not O.J. Simpson: He claims it was Jason Simpson, the former football star's son." 

From the Los Angeles Times 

"It's often said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. But you can add "rehashing of the O.J. Simpson case" to that list -- at least for the last 18 years.

So it should come as no surprise that a new book has been published about the 1994 murders of Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman." 

From The Huffington Post 

Ben Mankiewicz: "O.J.'s blood, O.J.'s glove, at the crime scene and house. It's a very strong case against O.J. Simpson that he's the murderer here."

Ana Kasparian: "Maybe this guy is a retired LAPD detective who doesn't give a shit about his reputation anymore, so he's just cashing in now." 

Cenk Uygur was essentially playing the devil's advocate here, in I believe in an intentionally humorous way. I don't the man as well as the people he works with over at The Young Turks (obviously) but I have to believe from what I've seen from his own commentary, that he's too smart to believe that O.J. Simpson is actually innocent here. 

Both Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian have taken on fake racism in the past and have argued that minorities shouldn't be acquitted simply because they're minorities. That you have to go with the facts and evidence, as well as the individuals in each case, to determine whether defendants are guilty or not.