The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur Interviewing Larry King-Talking About Half-Libertarianism

Source:The Daily Review

What is a half-libertarian? Someone who is very liberal and I mean in the real non-communistic sense on social issues and believes in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but is very conservative on economic policy and national security? Low taxes, decentralized government, low regulations, strong defense, etc? Or go the other way and someone who is lets say a Progressive and perhaps even Socialist on economic policy and is what would be called a Religious or Neoconservative on social issues and is not a fan of personal freedom at least in an individualist sense.

I've argued this before, but it depends on what you mean by Conservative and Liberal. Because they aren't the only factions on the political spectrum. There Conservatives who believe in a good deal of personal freedom and are still very conservative on economic policy and national security. Barry Goldwater, back in the day, Rand Paul and many others today. And then there are Liberals who believe in a good deal of economic freedom and are very liberal on social issues. Jack Kennedy, back in the day, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and many others today. The non-stereotypical Liberal, doesn't want to tax most of your money away from you and tell you what you can say, what you can eat and what you can drink. And the non-stereotypical Conservative, doesn't want America to police the world and police Americans personal behavior and babysit us at home. But will keep your taxes and regulations down while they borrow from China, Russia and Saudi Arabia, to finance their big government.

A so-called half-libertarian, would be a Liberal or a Conservative, at least in the classical sense and I would argue at least in the real sense. That both sides believe in both economic and personal freedom. But we don't believe believe business's should be able to pollute the air at taxpayers expense. Or believe that all narcotics should be legal even for children, or that child pornography, should be legal, or even child prostitution should be legal. Liberals and Conservatives, both put limits on both economic and personal freedom even though both sides agree with a good deal of both. But again both sides believe in rule of law. Not to babysit adult Americans and make sure everyone washes their hands after they take a dump, or make sure they eat vegetables. But to regulate how we interact with each other. Which some people at least call themselves Libertarians view as big government.

TYT Shows: The Panel: 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- Jerry Seinfeld: "What's the deal with political correctness?" LOL

"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.

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

TYT Shows: Video: Cenk Uygur: George McGovern on Vietnam

SourceLThe New Democrat

Just to talk about Cenk Uygur’s point about Senator George McGovern speech on the Senate floor in 1972 about the Vietnam War and then I’ll get into the anti-war movement back then. I wouldn’t be surprised if the speech that Cenk was quoting from, was stricken from the Congressional Record. There reasons why Congress has certain rules of decency and decorum and why members unless they are directly speaking to each other and sharing time on the floor, aren’t allowed to talk to each other directly and are now allowed to make their points personal. The House and Senate, are partisan enough just from the members that they have and how each party disagrees with each other on so many issues. You allow both chamber’s to attack each other personally and accuse each other personally and personally question motives of other members and the institution would fall apart.

There’s a very good reason why the Democratic Party hasn’t nominated anyone as far to the Left as George McGovern since for President. 1972, Senator McGovern, wins one state, Massachusetts. Perhaps the most socialist state in the union, at least back then. Perhaps even more socialist than Vermont, the so-called Socialist Republic of Vermont. Vermont, voted for President Richard Nixon. Senator McGovern, failed to break forty-percent of even the popular vote in 1972. That is what happens when you run as Far-Left as you possibly can see what happens. You end up representing a fringe population of the country. While you lose members of your own party as well. You don’t break forty-percent of the popular vote, you’re losing 1-5 of your own party.

George McGovern’s, record in the Democratic Party and in Congress, I believe is a mostly positive one. By changing the rules in the party, the primary system and how delegates to the convention are counted and appointed, he brought in a lot more voters to the Democratic Party. Which didn’t do him much good in 72, but I think he knew he was going to lose anyway and perhaps the country wasn’t ready for a, lets say Socialist-Liberal as their President. But all of those new Latino, African-American, Asian, Jewish and other voters, to the party, it benefited Jimmy Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 96, Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Which made the Democratic Party no longer dependent on the rural South, to win elections.

The Young Turks: Video: Panel: What Will Happen After Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid Retires?

Source:The New Democrat

It must be a slow news day if I’m blogging about the retirement of a U.S. Senator. Even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the most powerful Democrat in Congress and most powerful Democrat in Congress since 2005. Leader Harry Reid was President Bush’s biggest headache in Congress in President Bush’s second term. Both as Minority Leader and then as Leader of the Senate in President Bush’s last two years. A bigger headache to President Bush than his Vice President Dick Cheney and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. House Republicans must be throwing a big bash right now, even though a lot of them probably don’t drink, because it violates their religious beliefs. Because Leader Reid was their biggest headache the last ten years or so, not including President Obama. Because Leader Reid cold single-handily kill their agenda and their bills.

As far as who replaces Harry Reid either as Senate Minority Leader or Senate Leader in the next Congress, probably 50-50 odds right now as far as which position the next Democratic Leader will have. My choice would be the current Assistant Minority Leader Dick Durbin, whose been Leader Reid’s top deputy since Harry Reid became Senate Democratic Leader back in 2005. A strong Liberal Democrat pro-personal freedom and civil liberties leader. As well as being in favor of economic opportunity and freedom for struggling Americans. But I’m afraid the panel is right and that Chucky Wall Street will probably be the next Senate Democratic Leader. Because of all the money he raises for Democrats, because of his connections with Wall Street.

Sam Harris: Interview With Cenk Uygur- From The Young Turks

Source: Sam Harris: The Young Turks Interview

What I respect about Sam Harris's Atheism is that he's the real thing. He doesn't say Christianity is horrible and should be put down, especially when radical fundamentalists are in the news doing horrible things. But then defends the right of fundamentalists Muslims when they do and say horrible things about people they do not like and defend their right to free speech and Freedom of Religion. Even when these leftist political correctness radicals probably are against Freedom of Religion.

My example of that would be Salon and their coverage of now famous Real Time With Bill Maher show  that Sam Harris and Ben Affleck were on. When Ben Affleck was defending political correctness when it comes to criticism of Muslims, but have no problem attacking Christians when they do and say things that probably most Americans not just disagree with, but even find disgusting. Salon is garbage by the way. (And that is putting it nicely ) They are not much more than a propaganda operation for the far-left in America.

If you a real Liberal and even a real Atheist, you are not going to defend the right of free speech for people you agree with as a Liberal, while trying to shut up the opposition. As we see with leftist fascists on campus that try to block right-wingers from speaking at their schools. And if you are a real Atheist, you are not going to bash one religion and say that it is evil or whatever, while you are saying another religion is perfectly normal and legitimate. One of the points of being an Atheist is that you don't believe in religion and are against religion period. Which I believe is two of the points that Sam Harris is making.

Source: The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur and Sam Harris- Clear The Air on Religious Violence & Islam

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.

"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. 

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

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur & Anna Kasparien: 'The Establishment Should Fear Elizabeth Warren'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur.

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) went to bat for a fellow Democrat's underdog Senate campaign here Monday, railing against Rep. Shelley Moore Capito's (R-W.Va.) financial industry connections. The historic Shepherdstown, chartered in 1762, played host to Warren's upbeat rally in support of West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant.

Tennant and Capito are vying to succeed the retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) in a race that will produce the Mountain State's first-ever female senator. Warren, who has campaigned this cycle for Senate candidates across the Democratic political spectrum, gave a scathing criticism of Capito's record on financial issues. 

"When [Wall Street] needs her, [Capito's] been there," Warren said in a packed hotel ballroom. "She's out there for Wall Street, she's leading the charge. ... We need some more people who are willing to work on the side of America's families.""* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down. 

*Read more here from Samantha Lachman:The Huffington Post." 

From The Young Turks 

What are the real political differences between Senator Barack Obama from 2005 to late 2008 and Senator Elizabeth Warren now? They both used and use great rhetoric in the sense that they know how to move their bases and the so-called progressive wing (if you want to call it that) of the Democratic Party. But if you look at their voting records in the Senate, they were and are both with their leadership in the Senate that would put them with center-left of the party. But certainly not leftist, radical, Green Party, so-called Progressive Caucus types, the Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader types that The Young Turks tend to follow and love. 

I don't know if Senator Warren is going to run for president or not and what I've seen from her so far doesn't give me much to vote for. Long on rhetoric and short on policy. But keep in mind, U.S. Senate is not only her first experience in Congress, but in public office in general at least as an elected official and she's only been on the job for eighteen months. 

But the only people that should fear the Senator if she runs for president are the Hillary Clinton establishment Democrats. Because if Senator Warren does run, she'll take real stances and force Hillary Clinton to officially go on the record on things that she would rather keep a big secret at least until the general election in 2016. 

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

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Bill O'Reilly: Downright Sane Next to Laura Ingraham'

Source:The Young Turks- Cenk Uygur: not exactly a spokesperson for sanity.

“Bill O’Reilly is pegging Laura Ingraham’s opinion of using mass deportation to address illegal immigration as a “draconian” idea that would “destroy the Republican Party.”

From The Young Turks  

I disagree with Cenk Uygur on at least one thing here: Bill O’Reilly is not that much of a radical, or Tea Party radical on immigration either for political reasons, or in general. He is actually in favor of some type of legal status for the 10-15 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Cenk seems to think that is just for political reasons. Fine, but O’Reilly makes a good point here that he shared with Laura Ingraham (who was a roommate of Michele Bachmann and Ann Coulter at the nuthouse) when O’Reilly said that: “if the GOP takes this draconian approach towards illegal immigrants, they’re done.”

The reason why O’Reilly says that because he’s read the polls and sees the changing demographics. Today’s Republican Party is an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male party that is located primarily in the South and to a certain extent in the Midwest. And rural areas in the Mountain West. With the libertarian-right that doesn’t have much influence over the GOP Leadership when it comes to policy at least as it relates to social issues, immigration and foreign policy.

The GOP is not even a Caucasian party even though Anglo-Saxons are Caucasian, but an Anglo-Saxon party with other non-Protestant Caucasian ethnics tending to be Democrats or Independents. The Christian-Right Tea Party base in the GOP want to keep the GOP the way it is at all costs even if that means everyone else becoming Democrats. So instead of looking for ways to reach out to their non-traditional base of the party and the elected officials in their back pockets look for ways to prevent non-Republicans from voting, or even coming into the country, they pass bogus (to be nice) Voter ID laws and mass-deportations are a couple of examples of that.

If the GOP Leadership tries to do what Laura Ingraham suggested that they do in this video and they do it before the elections this year, we’ll see Democrats win back the House and hold the Senate. Why, because that would bring the Latin-American vote out for Democrats who normally do not vote in large numbers in mid-terms voting for Democrats. It would probably bring African-Americans out to vote as well again another population that doesn’t tend to vote heavy in mid-terms. Bill O’Reilly is smart enough to understand that, Laura Ingraham is off of her medication apparently and doesn’t get it. 

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

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

The Young Turks: Video: Cenk Uygur: Congress Does Nothing, Almost Literally & It's Not Just Republicans

Just to be serious for a minute and then go to being an asshole. Today's Progressives (lets say) especially MSNBC make the mistake in how they judge Congress. They also make the mistake in what they call Congress. They call it the Republican Congress even though Republicans only control the lower house of Congress. And they refer or our national legislature as the Congress and Senate. As if they are two different institutions apparently unaware that the Senate is not only part of Congress. But the official and actual upper chamber of Congress. Unlike a lot of other developed countries.

But the mistake that Cenk Uygur makes in this video even though he seems to be aware that the Senate is actually part of Congress along with the House of Representatives is how he judges Congress. You shouldn't judge Congress and that is what both chambers pass together after they work out the final bill, by how much legislation they pass. That would be like judging a cook by how many meals they prepare. Or a pitcher by how many pitches they throw. Or a teacher by how many students they teach.

You should judge Congress by what actual legislation they pass. The quality of legislation they pass, not the quantity of legislation they pass. A pitcher could throw 110 pitches in a game, but if he gives up six runs on ten hits and they are all earned. Or a cook makes a hundred meals one night and half of their customers comes down with food poisoning. Or a teacher with a hundred students, but half of them can't read at grade level and the teacher is an English teacher, well these people aren't doing their jobs even if they are doing a lot of work. They aren't doing a good job the job they were hired for.

The productivity of this Congress a divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate (what the American people voted for) is as slow as a mule in a NASCAR race. They simply aren't acting on things that they should be doing. Like fixing the highway trust fund and passing a highway bill to use as an example. But it isn't a bad Congress because they aren't passing a lot of legislation. But what they are actually doing. Are they passing good legislation or not. Are they addressing the concerns of the country, or not and this Congress is clearly failing at that.

The Young Turks: FNC's Neil Cavuto- Michele Bachmann's Latest Insanity Turns Neil Cavuto Reasonable

You know you are in trouble as a Republican (well smart Republicans know, not Michelle Bachmann) when someone on FOX News freaking Neil Cavuto of all people who is generally loyal to the Tea Party goes against you and tells you "that you are simply wrong. Stop talking so I can explain to you why you are wrong. Would you just shut the hell up for a minute so I can show you how wrong you are! You are not even a senator you can't filibuster on my show!"

It is really the first part that I'm interested in. As far as what Representative Bachmann (who will no longer be a Representative in six months) was proposing. Defunding the Executive Branch, how would that work? Isn't she pro-military and pro-national security and against terrorists and everyone who would wreck America as we know it? Well that is Republicans like her claim they are. Their voting records in Congress tends to suggest something else though. What part of the Federal Government does Representative Bachmann think these key functions of government are part of?

I have a great reform proposal for Congress. That everyone who serves on the intelligence committees has to be intelligent. That should go without saying, but Representative Bachmann just happens to be a member of the House Intelligence Committee. (And you wonder why Americans tend to get stereotyped as stupid) The House and Senate intelligence committees are about intelligence right, again that should go without saying. Well to understand intelligence you first have to be intelligent yourself so you know what the hell you are supposed to be learning.

My new reform for the House and Senate would say in order to serve on the intelligence committees you first have to show some certain degree of intelligence. Have and IQ north of one-hundred at least and a professional and congressional record that shows you are not only intelligent, but responsible and do not have a record of saying completely false things. Or simply making them up. And under this policy Michelle Bachmann would've never been eligible to serve on the House Intelligence Committee. And instead had an army of teachers trying to teach her how to be a U.S. Representative instead. Before she was eligible to serve on important House committees.

The Young Turks: Video: Panel: Kissing Representative Vance McAllister Caught On Camera

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.

TYT Sports: Rick Strom and Brett Erlich- 'Top 5 Lakers of All-Time!'

Source:TYT Sports- Top 5 Lakers ever.

"On a subject that is very debatable on every level, the guys take a stab at who the best Los Angeles Lakers players are of ALL-TIME! Kobe Bryant MUST be included since he took over a Lakers franchise and led them to five NBA Championships in his tenure. Another shoe-in is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, obvious choice as he is the points leader in NBA history. Who is on your list?" 

From TYT Sports

You could make a very good case that both Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Earvin Johnson are not just among the best basketball players of all time, but perhaps the two best players ever. Kareem played most of his career for the Lakers and Magic, his whole career.  That, alone, puts them in a tie for greatest Los Angeles Laker of all time.  Then, for 3, 4 and five there are plenty of other great Lakers to choose from.

For the rest of the list, I would start with Big Game James Worthy who was a franchise caliber player in the prime of his career.  He would have been the best player on almost every other team in the NBA.  He played with the Lakers for nine seasons with Magic and seven seasons with Kareem.  He almost won games 6 and 7 against the Detroit Pistons in the 1988 NBA Finals on his own and was the MVP of that Finals.

So I would go with Kareem and Magic at one without being sure who's one and who's two and then I go to Big Game James at three. Then I'm looking at Jerry West at four and then Kobe Bryant, Jerry West or Elgin Baylor at five. Shaquille O'Neal is not on my list because after he played half of his career with the Lakers, it went  almost completely downhill.  He wasn't even the best Laker of his era.  He dominated, the 2000s, a very weak era for NBA big men.  Shaq has some big strikes against him.

Jerry West and Kobe Bryant finish off my list.  Jerry's not only in the top five or ten players of all time but perhaps the best NBA general manager of all time.   He built the Showtime Lakers of the 1980s. So I would put him at four and then go to Kobe Bryant, the best all around NBA player post Michael Jordan.  He was the best player since Michael retired up until Lebron James arrived in Miami to play for the Heat. Oh, by the way, Kobe's won five NBA Finals as well and, without the injuries late in his career, he's perhaps still the best player in the NBA right now.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- Facial Hair Transplants: The Latest Hipster Rage

Source: The Young Tuks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- Facial Hair Transplants: The Latest Hipster Rage


People who claim to not care about what others think of them and how they look are sure as hell spending a lot of money to look a certain way. And of course they have the right to do that and I don't believe anyone is saying they don't, because it is their money and they can do whatever the hell they want to themselves as long as they are held responsible for their own decisions. But it's definitely a big contradiction, the smoking gun if you will, that hipsters are just as superficial about how they look as what I call valley people, who follow valley culture and live its lifestyle.

The Young Turks: Video: Jimmy Dore & Ben Mankiewicz: Simple Weed Question Destroys Deputy Drug Czar

This video is the perfect example of why the U.S. Government whoever is in charge since the creation of the so-called War on Drugs, why they have lost credibility. And no longer have much credibility on the War on Drugs. Especially with young adults let’s say early fifties and younger, but adolescents as well. When the Deputy Director of National Drug Policy Michael Botticeli can’t or won’t answer a simple basic question of whether or not marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, heroin or meth.

Representative Earl Blumenauer Democrat from Oregon who I like and respect, but do not agree with him on everything. Asked National Drug Policy Deputy Director Michael Botticeli who probably has all the information about the dangers of these illegal drugs as well as legal drugs and may even know this information by heart. Because it is a big part of his job. Was asked point-blank by Representative Blumenauer, “is marijuana as dangerous as meth or cocaine or heroin.” And Mr. Botticeli dodged the question, can only speculate why not being a mind-reader. But he must know the answer, but refused to share that information.

Representative Bluemenauer also made another great point that we’ve reduced the use of tobacco in this country. Not by locking people up, but by educating Americans about the dangers of tobacco. And then people seeing and knowing that and if they aren’t currently smoking, not getting into tobacco. And if they are current tobacco smokers getting off of tobacco or getting help for it. Which is exactly what we should be doing as far as how we deal with marijuana in this country.

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.

"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. 

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

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

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

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

The Young Turks: John Iadarola & Cenk Uygur: 'Is President Obama Right About Marijuana?'

Source:The Young Turks- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"In an interview published Sunday by the New Yorker, President Obama said pot is no more dangerous than alcohol — and that marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington state is an "important" move towards a more just legal system. "I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," Obama told reporter David Remnick. "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol." In fact, the president went on to admit pot was actually less dangerous "in terms of its impact on the individual consumer." Obama also dived into the vastly disproportionate effect marijuana arrests and incarcerations have on non-white Americans...".* Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola (host of TYT University and Common Room) break it down on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks

As Cenk Uygur said, Barack Obama is not a leader, but a politician. And I don't mean that if a negative way, necessarily. I mean we all get the politicians that we elect and reelect, but the idea that even a few of them are ever willing to take a strong stance that could hurt their reelection, you might as well be praying for snow in South Florida in July. Goes way beyond wishful thinking. President Obama like any other good politicians, knows that marijuana prohibition is very unpopular with young voters and that's who he's trying to appeal to here.

Source:The New Yorker- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

Keep in mind, this is coming from one of the safest politicians at least in modern American political history. Who is well-known for looking at all sides and considering all opinions before making a final decision. Whose run his last race for political office and now has the freedom to basically say what he wants with few diplomatic exceptions. 

What President Obama has done here I believe is not just look at the facts when it comes to marijuana, but acknowledging them as well. For a change, I agree with a lot of what Cenk Uygur said here. But what I would add is that President Obama is a politician before a leader. He’s a leader, just a safe one who generally doesn’t want to be the first person to go out on a limb and take a big stand on a big issue. 

Actually, President Obama he has led on big issues before. The Great Recession when he first took office, health care reform, Wall Street reform, all uses where he’s paid a big price for. But that have worked out and we're the right things to do at the time. But generally, politicians are thinking about their own popularity and careers first, doing the right thing regardless of the politics, second.

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

The Young Turks: John Iadarola- Brian Schweitzer 2016? Will Hillary Clinton Move to The Left?

Source: The Young Turks: John Iadorola- Brian Schweitzer 2016? Will Hillary Clinton Move To The Left?

Brian Schweitzer is the perfect liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton because he’s an actual Liberal. And he would prevent her from running to the middle from day one and trying to convince voters to vote for her simply because she’s a women. And this would be a chance to vote for the first female president etc. And prevent her from running for president without an agenda and vision and simply trying to make the case that Democrats should simply vote for the first female president and that she’s also the most electable as well.

Brian Schweitzer would be a very strong presidential candidate because he’s a real Liberal both as it relates to personal and economic freedom. And someone with a strong record as it relates to fiscal responsibility. Eliminating the possible tax and spend label and someone who could win well in Montana for one, but outside of the Northeast and Northwest. And would put states like Indiana and North Carolina in play as well. With his ability to communicate to working class voters.

Republican Leader: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: It's Time for Better Ideas

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell actually sounding constructive instead of obstructive here in talking about expanding educational and job training opportunities for unemployed workers as part of a deal that would extend Unemployment Insurance for these long-term workers. Who definitely need that income right now and is something that Senate Democrats should at least allow for a vote on. It is relevant to the legislation and would get these workers additional skills that would make to easier for them to find a good job and finally get off of Unemployment Insurance. If you’re unemployed right now, but already have a good education, but are having a hard time finding another job in your profession, the, the more you can improve your skills, the better your chances of finding a good full-time job.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- The Only Group Opposing Racial Equality

Not sure if America is a center-right or center-left country and not sure how Cenk Uygur gets that. But we certainly aren’t a country that goes very far right or left even though we certainly have a Far-Right and Far-Left in this country. That at times I believe has too much power, but that is really a different discussion. But we certainly are a county that believes in a high degree of both economic and personal freedom. And a big reason why I believe Jack Kennedy, Ron Reagan and Bill Clinton were so successful as presidents politically as well, because they all believed in both of those things and connected very well with average voters.

Where I agree with Cenk Uygur is that Americans believe in things like equality of opportunity. And of course some Americans will always start off life better than others because of how they were raised. But equality of opportunity and not results which is different and a topic for another blog, is about all Americans having the opportunity to be successful in America. And that starts with education growing up that all Americans have the opportunity to go to good schools. Regardless of their parents incomes and even the ability to go to college as well. And that our low-skilled workforce has the opportunity to be successful as well with educational and job training opportunities to move up and do well in life.

So maybe Cenk is right in the sense that America is a Center-Left country. But Center-Left not being as far to the left as he would like it, but more about expanding freedom to more Americans. And having more Americans with real economic power in this country so they do not need public assistance to pay their bills. But not a country that expects government to provide a lot if not most of the services that we need to do well. Just there to see that we all have those opportunities for success in life on our own.