David Pakman: 'The Good & The Bad About Obamacare Ruling'

Source:David Pakman- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.

"--What's good and bad for the future of American healthcare as a result of the Supreme Court decision.

--On the Bonus Show: Woman superglued to Walmart toilet, Texas GOP calls for end to critical thinking, Chinese dog meat market, more... 

From David Pakman

Not to sound insulting, (intentionally, anyway) but the bald guy in this video nailed it, when he said that this ruling is good in the sense that Switzerland has figured out how to get to universal health insurance, with a private health insurance system. 

What so-called Progressives (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) need to get use to and figure out, the rest of the industrialized world does not have a socialized health insurance system. There are actually probably more countries that have private health insurance, then don't. And every time I hear someone say that America should have socialize health insurance, because the rest of the industrialized world has it, I'm going to correct them and I'll probably do it on my blog. 

We can have our own opinions, but we have to share the same facts, thats how the World works. Germany like Switzerland, another country with a significant German population, to say the least, (a little shout out for my people) has a completely private health insurance system, 

Germany a country that Socialists love and point too, has a completely private health insurance system, a country of over 80M people, with the fourth largest economy in the world, largest economy in Europe, the 2nd largest economy in the Western Hemisphere, private Health Insurance System. Not even America has that, we have a mixture of both. 

So just to be real here, (not that I'm not always real) for Socialists to ever get what they want in American health care, they need to convince perhaps 180 million Americans, that they know best what kind of health care and health insurance that everyone should have and that Americans simply aren't up to making these decisions for themselves. Otherwise we're always going to have a public/private health insurance and health care system in this country.

The Real News: Paul Jay Interviewing Margaret Flowers: 'Supreme Court Sides With Corporatization of Medicine'

Source:The Real News- with a look at SCOTUS & the ACA.

"Dr. Flowers: Decision strengthens the role of private insurance companies and makes the fight for Medicare for All more difficult" 

From The Real News

As I said yesterday on FreeState MD, what Dr. Margaret Flowers doesn't seem to have a problem  with, if the Affordable Care Act was thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court today, 20 million Americans would ,lose the health insurance that they have today and we would go back to pre-2010, that left out 45-50 million Americans without health insurance. With no replacement available or able to pass the Congress (House & Senate) signed by President of the United States, whether that's President Barack Obama today, or perhaps a President Mitt Romney next year. 

I can understand someone being against a law or policy, but to throw out a current law simply you don't like it, that currently benefits 300 plus million Americans, with no ability to pass a new law simply because you don't have the political support and votes for it, you are hurting people (even unintentionally) to try to save them in the future. 

Dr, Flowers and her supporters are essentially telling a country of 300 hundred plus Americans that even though you like what you currently have, since we think it's not good for you, we're going to take it away from you now and perhaps give you something better and different down the line. Even though in the meantime they have to go back to a system where they couldn't afford health care that they need now. 

The Nation: Laura Flanders & Margaret Flowers: 'Obamacare Doesn't Go Far Enough'

Source:The Nation- Laura Flanders talking to Dr. Margaret Flowers.

"Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program sees one major flaw in President Obama's Affordable Care Act: It did not go far enough. The only solution, Flowers argues in this conversation with Laura Flanders, is to push for universal healthcare by expanding medicare so that it covers all Americans." 

From The Nation

The consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court throwing out most, if not all of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, (which Dr. Margaret Flowers doesn't seem to have problem with) is that 20 million Americans, most of those Americans who are very hard-working and limited in income, would automatically lose their current health insurance. 

If SCOTUS throws out the ACA, we would immediately go back to a system that left out 45-50 million Americans who get up and work very hard for a living and don't make a lot of money, who can't afford health insurance, even if their employers currently offer health insurance, because they can't even afford their employer's plan. 

Dr. Flowers seems to be suggesting that we can just throw out the ACA (also known as ObamaCare) and replace it with a government only and government-run plan, where every single American would be under the same government-run, health insurance plan, which has never been popular in this country, or it would've. been passed into law by now, as if it's that easy. 

What Dr. Flowers seems to be suggesting, is that replacing ObamaCare would be really easy. You spill a glass of milk, no problem. Just clean up your little mess and pour yourself another glass of milk. As if there's not a Republican House of Representatives right now, or they would just suddenly see the light and say something like: "You know what, I've been wrong all along. What we really need is a government takeover of our health care system in America. Let's pass that today and send it to the Senate."  

What we need to do instead, is for SCOTUS to uphold the current Affordable Care Act and then let the election decide what kind of health care system that we should have in the future and have a little faith in American democracy and Americans to make their own most personal of decisions, like their own health care. Instead of big government treating them like idiots and telling them that they know what's best for them.  

You can also see my follow up post about Dr. Margaret Flowers and the SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act, at FreeState MD.

Thom Hartmann: 'Higher Income = Job Growth'

Source:Thom Hartmann- on taxes in America.

"Thom Hartmann responds to a caller's question about Supply Side Economics

If you liked this clip of The Thom Hartmann Program, please do us a big favor and share it with your friends... and hit that "like" button!" 

From Thom Hartmann

What left-wing talk radio host Thom Hartmann doesn't mention in this video, is before Ronald Reagan was President, the economy was horrible and it was still horrible during the first two years of his Presidency. The 1970s was one of the worst decades we had economically with those high tax rates, that Thom Hartmann and other leftists speak so highly of. 

President Reagan cuts taxes across the board in 1981, gets them passed in a divided Congress (Democratic House and a Republican Senate) that alone with President Reagan didn't pay for those tax cuts or his boom in the defense budget. But as he admitted later on, if it is a choice between ending the Cold War and a balanced budget, he takes ending the Cold War and living with a large debt and deficit, that he left for President Bush in 1989. 

Starting in 1983, the American economy boomed: 10% unemployment goes down to 5%. President Reagan's economic policy is called Supply Side Economics. He didn't invent it, people like Art Laffer developed it in the late 1970s. You cut taxes across the board and you don't pay for them with budget cuts, because the theory is that the economic growth stimulated by the tax cuts, would make up for any lost revenue from the tax cuts.

President Reagan and Congressional Republicans were half right, that the tax cuts did generate economic growth, because everyone including the middle class had additional money to spend and the middle class spent that money, but not enough to make for the 1T$ or so (in today's money) that taxes were cut by. And even Mr. Hartmann isn't aware of that or won't acknowledge it, 

Tax cuts to stimulate economic Growth is not new. President Kennedy and President Johnson did this in the 1960s and we saw and economic boom by the mid 1960s. Both these guys are Democrats by the way and both Progressive Democrats, but they also had balanced budgets back then, President Johnson is still the last President before President Clinton to have a balanced budget. Thom Hartmann speaks about the advantages of these high tax rates, pre-President Kennedy ranging from 25-90% and doesn't mention how bad the economy was in the 1970s.

With those big tax rates again from 25-90% pre President Kennedy, recession in the late 1950s, two recessions in the 1970s, with weak economic and job growth, mixed in, taxes were cut in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, under two Democratic President's and one Republican President and we had economic booms in those three decades. High taxes don't work especially if you are in the middle class, when you are struggling just to pay the current bills. 

Supply Side Economics mixed in with borrow and spending, which is what we got from Ron Reagan and George W. Bush doesn't work either. Taxes should be designed based on people's ability to pay and that encourage productivity and economic growth.

David Pakman: Democratic Representative Al Green Calls For Radicalized Christian Hearings

Source:David Pakman- U.S. Representative Al Green (Democrat, Texas)

"--During anti-Muslim Congressional hearings, Texas Congressman Al Green, a Democrat, calls for hearings on the "radicalization of Christians."

Source:David Pakman

To answer David Pakman's question: because the militant wing of the Christian-Right base in America, votes overwhelmingly Republican. And even the non-militant base of the Christian-Right in America, wouldn't approve of a Congressional committee (House or Senate) investigating members of their own movement, even if they are terrorists. 

But the fact is the overwhelmingly terrorists attacks in America that are based on religion, comes from so-called fundamentalist, Protestant Christians, not Islamists. For the simple reason that Muslims and Middle Easterners, are still such a small minority in America. Especially compared with Anglo-Saxon-Protestants. whether they're Southern or Northern in America.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Michael Shure: 'Scary: Private Prison Presentation For Investors'

Source:The Young Turks- with a piece about CCA.

"Corrections Corp of America (CCA), a huge private prison business, has a presentation for investors that just might creep you out. How much money is made by locking people up? Ana Kasparian and guest host Michael Shure discuss the prison industrial complex, the failed drug war, and the incentive to push for profits over a safer society." 

From The Young Turks

"It was from Barclays' analyst Manav Patnaik, and it was on the private prisons business.

Specifically, it was a "virtual tour" of the Metro Davidson County Detention Facility, which is managed by Corrections Corp of America (CXW) one of two companies that that has a "duopoly" on the private prisons business.

As he notes, tours of facilities are often useful for investors, but a prison tour is unusual, since investors aren't typically inclined to do wander into a prison.

So he did it for them and described the experience." 

From Business Insider

I said this many times this year already, but apparently it needs to be said again: one of the core functions of government, at any level, is law enforcement. One of the core functions of state and the Federal Government, is also criminal justice. They're supposed to house and hopefully rehabilitate our criminals, especially our repeat offenders, longtime felons, and violent criminals. 

Private, for-profit, corporations (which is what the Corrections Corporation of America is) is in the business to make as much money as they can. Which is great, in a free, capitalist, society, like America. But not at the expense of taxpayers and our convicted felons.  

You want to save money on criminal justice in America: 

Stop locking people for simple drug obsession and for being addicts. 

Stop sending mentally handicapped people to prison.

Put our prison inmates to work in prison, so they can learn the skills that they need to do well on the outside legally, but also so they can pay for their room and board while in prison.

The Nation: 'Fighting Back Against Stop-and-Frisk'

Source:The Nation- with a video about stop & frisk.

"Several thousand people marched down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue on June 17 to demand an end to the New York Police department's controversial Stop-and-Frisk tactic. The silent march, organized by the NAACP and a coalition of nearly 300 other groups, sought to draw attention to the damage the massive spike in street interrogations is causing to communities of color.

For more videos visit:The Nation" 

From The Nation 

There are plenty of laws, at least in American history, that are unconstitutional, as well as ineffective. I'm thinking of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act today, as well as bans against homosexuality in the 1950s and 60s, in general, bans against inter-racial marriage, forced segregation by government, alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 30s, the so-called War On Drugs today. 

There are also laws that are perhaps unconstitutional, but seem to work. I think New York City's Stop & Frisk police policy seems to be one of them. I don't live in New York, I live 200 miles South of NYC, just outside of Washington. But the crime rates there, not just in this century so far, have plummeted, as well as in the 1990s. Stop & Frisk seems to be a reason for that. 

I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one even in the Blogosphere, let alone on TV, but unless opponents (especially on the Left) can argue and claim that minorities and gays are specifically being targeted by the NYPD Stop & Frisk policy, simply because they're minority or gay, or both, they're going to have a helluva time getting this law thrown out by the courts, even in supposed left-wing New York City.

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur: Mitt Romney - 'I Don't Have A Political Career'

Source:The Young Turks- Governor Flip Flopper (Republican, Massachusetts) I mean Mitt Romney  (easy mistake) talking to CBS News's Bob Schieffer, on Face The Nation.

"Is Mitt Romney a politician? The 2012 Republican Presidential candidate said "I don't have a political career" in an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face The Nation. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down." 

From The Young Turks

Cenk Uygur is someone that I agree with as often as Jews declare their love for Palestine and Arabs declare their love for Israel. Well, perhaps even more often that that. But Cenk nailed Mitt Romney on the head (to use an ageless cliche) when he said that Mitt Romney only doesn't have a political career, because he keeps losing. 

Mitt lost a very winnable U.S. Senate seat to Ted Kennedy in 1994, when even Teddy wasn't a very popular Democrat (perhaps even in Massachusetts) and when Democrats all over the country and not just in Congress, got their asses handed to them. But Teddy since his opponent was Mitt Romney, was one of those few Congressional Democrats who managed to survive 1994, because his opponent was Flip Flopper. I mean Mitt Romney, but you get the idea. Ted Kennedy was the Democrat who nicknamed Mitt Multiple Choice, a political nickname that Mitt is still trying to live with, almost 20 years later. 

Go up to 2007-08, when Mitt Romney was perhaps the best funded Republican running for President, in a field that didn't have a Republican frontrunner the whole time, until John McCain gets hot in early 08 and starts winning a bunch of primaries. But Mitt finishes 2nd or 3rd in that field, because he spent about a year trying to convince Republican voters that he wasn't who he really was, which was a flip flopping politician, who has no consistent record as a politician. 

So sure, if you want to play semantics, Mitt Romney is not a career politician. But to be a career politician, you first have to get elected and get reelected over and over. And Mitt Romney is still trying to figure out how to get elected in the first place.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: ''Vagina' Gets Representative Banned?'

Source:The Young Turks- Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown.

"Michigan House Republicans blocked a state representative from speaking on the floor on Thursday after she referenced certain parts of female anatomy in a speech on an abortion bill. "Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no,'" Rep. Lisa Brown (D) said to cap her remarks in which she expressed stark opposition to a series of bills regulating abortion, including one that would ban the procedure after 20 weeks unless the woman's life was in danger, according to The Detroit News. House Republicans called the remarks over the line and barred her from participating in a subsequent debate on education...".* Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks." 

From The Young Turks 

When people tend to think of political correctness in America, they tend to think of language that may offend minorities (but more likely it just offends far-leftists) that the left-wing (to be kind) in America wants to see banned or go away. But similar with fascism and big government in general, there's left-wing political correctness, but there's also right-wing political correctness that's generally promoted by the so-called Christian-Right in America. And this is the perfect example of that. 

Do yourself a favor: never take people seriously who claim to be against big government, even though they want big government in our personal lives. And never take people seriously who claim to be in favor of free speech, but they're only in favor of free speech that they approve of. Because you'll be taken for a ride over and over, like the blind passenger who gets into the cab of a crooked cabbie.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: 'Meghan McCain Smokes Weed - Does Cenk?'

Source:The Young Turks- Conservative commentator Meghan McCain on The View on ABC.

"Meghan McCain explained how she smoked pot when she was living in Los Angeles . In her appearance on ABC's The View, the daughter of former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain added that she thinks marijuana should be decriminalized. Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and other members of The Young Turks discuss." 

From The Young Turks

Hearing the term a breath of fresh air to describe a Republican, is like hearing about a dog making out with a cat. I gotta double check that and make sure I'm not hearing things or I'm not dreaming or something, (perhaps high on pot and not ever aware of it) it takes a while for something like that to sink in. 

Before I go further into Meghan McCain's position on marijuana, I think a little background of her is important. 

Meghan McCain obviously the daughter of U.S. Senator John McCain, but they're both Arizona Republicans (not Bible Belt Republicans) and even though her father is not with her on marijuana, this is a state that's produced Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Jeff Flake, John McCain, and his daughter Meghan. 

I'm sure Arizona is a diverse state even within the Republican Party, but we're talking about a place where classical conservatism (or conservative libertarianism, if you prefer) is still very popular. To say we're talking about different types of Republicans as compared with, I don't know Mississippi (just to use as an example) is like saying the weather is different in Wisconsin in January, then it is Florida. You know, it's a different type of winter up in Wisconsin, at least compared with Florida. It would be an excellent impression of Captain Obvious. 

So I'm not surprised that an Arizona Republican, who probably looks up to Barry Goldwater, like Meghan McCain, would be in favor of at least decriminalizing marijuana, if not legalizing it all together. We're talking about big government out-of-our-wallets, bedrooms, classrooms, boardrooms, and perhaps now bodies, Republicans.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur: 'Should Fat People Be Taxed?'

Source:The Young Turks- talking about obesity.

"Over one-third of Americans are now obese. What is the impact on employers, health insurance premiums, and other things like gas usage? Should fat people be taxed? Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, Lucas Lilieholm, Jayar Jackson, and Jesus Godoy break down a Reuters report on this topic on The Young Turks.

Read more here from Sharon Begley:Reuters." 

From The Young Turks

I'm not a nanny statist and someone who believes in any form of big government. But I also don't like the idea of irresponsible people (like obese people) being able to pass the cost of their personal, expensive, decisions, onto people who aren't obese, who aren't heavy smokers and perhaps don't smoke at all, who aren't heavy drinkers of alcohol either. 

If people want to stuff their faces, smoke their lungs out, drown their kidney's and hearts in alcohol, that's their personal decisions, just as long as taxpayers don't have to pay for their bad personal decisions.

I'm not with the the Mike Bloomberg's and the other nanny statists who want to prohibit people from making bad decisions with their own lives. But I think taxing junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, and tobacco, products, that are obviously bad for people, makes sense. And is a much better idea, then forcing people to cover the costs of others bad personal decisions.

Sam Seder: 'Firing Government Workers Hurting The Economy'

Source:Sam Seder- talking about government workers in the economy.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report. Sam Seder was on the Kudlow Report on CNBC last night and the topic: austerity... 

From Sam Seder

I think we need to go back 3-4 and look back at where the economy was before Barack Obama became President and where it is now. Of course the Great Recession was going on and it dominated 2008 and into probably the 1st six months of the Obama Administration in 2009. But they also inherited a  national debt of 11 trillion-dollars, and a budget deficit of 1.5 trillion-dollars. 

This idea that deficits and debt doesn't matter: for anyone whose sane and sober, as well who isn't currently braindead, (hopefully that's a big club in America) who actually believes that debt and deficits doesn't matter, you should stop arguing for higher taxes, even if you only want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Because if debt and deficits doesn't matter, government never needs more revenue to pay for its expenses, because it now has unlimited borrowing authority. 

People on the left (I'm sure Sam Seder is one of them) argue that you shouldn't cut deficits when the economy is struggling. Fine, but the Obama Administration didn't do that immediately. The 2009 Recovery And Investment Act was all borrowed money and it was just a 2-year deal. But since then and since the economy now steadily growing again, they've been operating under PAYGO (pay as you go) and the deficit has been falling ever since. The 2011 Budget Control Act has also contributed do the deficit reduction as well. 

Sure! The Obama Administration could've borrowed another 2 trillion-dollars (let's say) after the Recovery Act (had Democrats had not have lost the House) but then the Federal Reserve perhaps steps in and starts raising interest rates because of all the Federal borrowing and maybe we see a spike in inflation as well. And there goes all the progress that country has made as far as economic and job growth since the 2008 Great Recession.

Sam Seder: 'Ed Schultz v. Media Matters...Leave Limbaugh Advertisers Alone!'

Source:Diffen- left-wing talk show host Ed Schultz.

"From the Majority Report, live M-F 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report: At a Talkers convention, an event for the talk radio industry, Sean Hannity and Ed Schultz both tell liberals and left wing media, like Media Matters, to stop sending messages to right wing media, like Rush Limbaugh, with an advertiser boycott.. 

From Sam Seder

People who like to call themselves Progressives today (but who aren't very progressive at all) like to claim that their spiritual and will even say that they're spiritual, but not religious (which is like being a vegan who only eats pork and fish when it comes to meat) and seem to know a lot about what's called spirituality. 

Well, folks who are familiar with spirituality, know what karma is all about and the whole boomerang theory. If the left-wing (to be kind in America) starts to go after right-wing media companies and personalities and just doesn't go after them and no longer tries to beat them in the market place and try to beat them in a battlefield of ideas, (which is one of the things that a free society is about) and instead tries to take down their business and go after them financially, because they know that government won't try to force right-wingers out-of-business and say you don't have a a right to be on the air, because they don't like what the right-wing has to say, this could and probably would come back to bite far-leftists's ass.

If the left-wing is successful here in taking down right-wing media, then you would see not just right-wing media companies going after the advertising and the revenue of left-wing media personalities, but perhaps you would see some far-right administration, perhaps even at the the federal level, trying to take down left-wing media personalities through government force.  

Russia Today: 'Judge Saves Americans From President Obama's NDAA'

Source:Russia Today- interviewing David Segal.

"Judge saves Americans from Obama's NDAA

Published on Jun 7, 2012 by RTAmerica

Thursday marked another victory against the battle on the National Defense Authorization Act. District Judge Katherine Forrest not only sided with the plaintiffs suing the Obama administration, but with every American. Section 1021 of the act, which allows for the military to indefinitely detain Americans at home and abroad without due process has been met with heavy criticism causing the group of individuals to file the lawsuit. David Segal, executive director for Demand Progress, joins us with more.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook" 

From Finance & Politics. But they might also be part of President Vladimir Putin's Russia Today.

"RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya) (Russian: Россия Сегодня)[9] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international news television network funded by the Russian government.[16][17] It operates pay television and free-to-air channels directed to audiences outside of Russia, as well as providing Internet content in Russian, English, Spanish, French, German and Arabic.

RT is a brand of TV-Novosti, an autonomous non-profit organization founded by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti in April 2005.[8][18] During the economic crisis in December 2008, the Russian government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, included ANO "TV-Novosti" on its list of core organizations of strategic importance to Russia.[19][20][21] RT operates as a multilingual service with channels in five languages: the original English-language channel was launched in 2005, the Arabic-language channel in 2007, Spanish in 2009, German in 2014 and French in 2017. RT America (2010–2022),[22][23] RT UK (2014–2022) and other regional channels also produce local content. RT is the parent company of the Ruptly video agency,[5] which owns the Redfish video channel and the Maffick digital media company.[6][7]

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy.[2] Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation[58] and conspiracy theories.[65] UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.[72]

In 2012, RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan compared the channel to the Russian Ministry of Defence.[73] Referring to the Russo-Georgian War, she stated that it was "waging an information war, and with the entire Western world".[17][74] In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a foreign agent with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[75]

RT was banned in Ukraine in 2014 after Russia's annexation of Crimea;[76] Latvia and Lithuania implemented similar bans in 2020.[77][78] Germany banned RT DE in February 2022.[79] After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland and then the entire European Union as well as Canada announced they were formally banning RT as well, while independent service providers in over 10 countries suspended broadcasts of RT.[80][81][82] Social media websites followed by blocking external links to RT's website and restricting access to RT's content.[83][84] Microsoft removed RT from their app store and de-ranked their search results on Bing,[85][86] while Apple removed the RT app from all countries except for Russia." 

From Wikipedia

I'm thinking indefinite detention is actually part of President George W. Bush's neoconservatism that President Barack Obama likes. Then Senator Barack Obama spent most of 2007-08, and perhaps the early part of 2009, trying to convince Americans that he was the anti-GWB. And on economic policy, as well as foreign policy, he's been very successful at being the anti-GWB. But indefinite detention, the War On Drugs, illegal immigration, if anything, President Obama has govern to the right of President Bush. 

David Pakman: 'Leaked Mitt Romney Emails Confirm He Supported Individual Mandate'

Source:David Pakman- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) running for President on CNN.

"Recently uncovered emails show Mitt Romney was hugely personally supportive of the individual mandate for health insurance while Governor of Massachusetts.

--On the Bonus Show: Too much exercise nay hurt the heart, Dutch start-up to colonize Mars, counterfeit money, more.

The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman" 

From David Pakman

If you want to know why Mitt Romney was for it before he was against it, I'll tell you anyway. In 2005-06, Mitt Romney is still Governor of Massachusetts, perhaps the bluest state in the Union, with the most Democrats in the country, per-capita, with a State Legislature that's like 4-1 Democratic. But, he was already planning to run for President, perhaps as early as 2008 when then President George W. Bush wouldn't be eligible to run for President again. 

There's only so much that any governor regardless of the state can do by themself, even through executive order. Which means he or she, has to be able to work with the Legislature, to get most of their agenda passed and be able to take credit for major accomplishments that are long lasting. 

Health care was a big issue back in the mid-2000s, as it's today and I'm thinking then Governor Romney saw health care reform as an issue where he could get ahead of the rest of the Republican Party and potential Republican presidential candidates and say that he was a Republican reformer, like a Teddy Roosevelt perhaps be able to take that issue away from Senator John McCain. If you look at the RomneyCare plan or the ObamaCare plan, it's basically the same plan, with a lot of Republican reforms in it: 

Individual mandate 

Patients Bill of Rights

Tax credit for lower-middle-income workers to buy health insurance 

Private market for health insurance and the exchanges 

But go up to 2012, Mitt Romney is not only no longer Governor of Deep Blue Massachusetts, but he's running nationally now as a presidential candidate in the Republican Party and will be their presidential nominee in 2012. 

The Tea Party Populist-Right now runs the Republican Party, by-in-large, meaning he can't get elected President without their votes. So now Mitt is running around the country for President, while at the same time he's running away from his own political career and career in government, pre-2009 and pretending what he did before 2009, never actually happened. I guess Mitt is courting the blind and death, as well as politically retarded vote for President. 

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur & Ana Kasparian: 'Packers Rip Scott Walker'

Source:The Young Turks- a Green Bay Packers TE or WR. I don't follow the current Packers very closely.

"Scott Walker's recall election is under way, and he's under fire from an unlikely source - the Green Bay Packers. Several of the Packers made their voices heard Wednesday regarding Wisconsin governor Walker. Which one spokes out, and why? What effect will this have on the race? Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks and Ana Kasparian break it down on TYT Sports. " 

From The Young Turks

As Cenk Uygur was saying (someone who I agree with as often as hippie vegans eat hot dogs with milkshakes) the City of Green Bay is a union city. The State of Wisconsin is a union state. The Green Bay Packers are a union company. Scott Walker is as anti-union, as Ron Paul is anti-socialist. So of course the Packers, perhaps the entire franchise, is going to endorse the presidential candidate whose pro-union. In this case President Barack Obama, over someone if they could would eliminate all collective bargaining (public or private) in the state of Wisconsin. And that's as clear and obvious as I can state this.

David Pakman: 'KS Pastor Curtis Knapp: Government Should Kill Gays, But They Won't'

Source:David Pakman- talking about Pastor Curtis Knapp.

"--Kansas Pastor Curtis Knapp says that the government should kill gays and lesbians, but "they won't," and then issues a bizarre non-apologetic explanation.

--On the Bonus Show: Parents who named kids after Hitler lose custody, CDC denies existence of zombies, "Truman Show" delusions, more.

The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman" 

From David Pakman 

I might know the answers to these questions already, but just in case I don't and for conversation sake, I'm going to ask them anyway. 

Why does the so-called Christian-Right (if you want to call these folks that) so insense about homosexuality and gays? Again, I think I know the answer to this, but let's layout some possibilities. 

There's a theory that the people who are the most homophobic, at least in America, are privately gay themselves. We saw that just back in 2006 with a lot of right-wing, fundamentalist pastors, who were secretly having affairs, not just with men, but teenage boys as well. We saw that back in 2002 with the scandal involving the Catholic Church as well. 

The so-called Christian-Right and I hate calling them that, because the most fundamentalist of this political cult movement, if anything seem anti-Christian, at least as far as how they treat their fellow human beings, especially people who dare to disagree with them on anything, but the so-called Christian-Right in America talks about the Ten Commandments all the time. Yet, they're guilty of at least 3 of them on a regular basis: 

thou shall not steal, thou shall not cheat, and with the militant wing of the Christian-Right, thou shall not kill. Some asshole is probably going to take this pastor (if you want to call Curtis Knapp that) and perhaps kill at least one gay person now, thinking: "Well, if the government is not going to kill gay people, I'll have to do it myself." 

The so-called Christian-Right also hates what Christians call the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have then do unto you. To put it simply; treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. They also hate what's generally seen as an American value, which is live and let live. You don't have to agree with the way someone else lives their own life. You just believe that they have the same right to life, as you do.  

Again, I think I know the answers to my own questions. So the so-called Christian-Right in America are the West's version of Islamists. We're talking about fundamentalist theocrats here, who believe in their religious and cultural values so strongly, that they believe those values should be the rule of law in America, not the Constitution. And if you violate any of them, you should pay the most serious of consequences.