Real Time With Bill Maher: Oliver Stone (2010)

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- I think Bill Maher trying to take Oliver Stone seriously.

Source:The New Democrat

"Oliver Stone tries to enlighten Bill Maher, on the Israeli Flotilla raid, and how AIPAC really controls congress as a foreign agent unduly influencing American politics. Bill Maher knows which side his bread is buttered on, and sticks to the Israeli propaganda he has been paid to deliver via HBO. Open Hood"

From Darth Anubis

Bill Maher said something to the affect in this video, “that we need a good conspiracy theory”, or, “does anyone have a good conspiracy theory?” And I’m thinking as I heard that, Oliver Stone was sitting right next to him on this show. The man whose made a career out of conspiracy theories. Go back to 1991 with JFK about the JFK assassination and perhaps Platoon, that was about the Vietnam War.

And in this video which I’m guessing is at least a few years old, because they were talking about Hugo Chavez as if he was still alive. Chavez has been dead for two years.

Bill Maher likes to talk about what he calls the “Crazy Left.” I tend to call them the Far-Left, but Senator Bernie Sanders is pretty Far-Left as a Democratic Socialist and has economic policies that I don’t agree with and has a much larger role for government, especially the Federal Government than I do. But Bernie Sanders (generally speaking, is not crazy.

But Senator Sanders, doesn’t throw out conspiracy theories for the most part and say things like America and Israel are in to wiping out the Palestinians and want to occupy Iraq indefinitely because they want the oil. 

So maybe Crazy Left will be what I call our Left-Wing, well characters lets say to be nice. Because there are good, rational, intelligent, people even on the Far-Left in America. Like Bernie Sanders and many others.

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'Liberals vs. Fake Liberals'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- and Elton John. 

Source:The New Democrat

"In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher calls on liberals to stop attacking people who agree with them." 

From Real Time With Bill Maher

Just to correct Bill Maher for a moment and lately I’ve agreed with him on almost everything.: But this is not “Liberals vs. Liberals”. This is not John Kerry vs. John Kennedy. This is Liberals, like a Jack Kennedy or a John Kerry, two of my favorite Liberals, vs. the Far-Left. The Left’s version of the Christian Right or New-Right in America.

Liberals believe in free speech. What is free speech, well the right to speak freely. Not the right to say what most of the country already believes or already agrees with you on. And with free speech comes people being offended and perhaps being oversensitive and being too offended. The Far-Left New Leftists, perhaps Statists and maybe even Socialists, don’t believe in free speech.

Sure, the Far-Left believes they have the right to free speech, but for everyone else we have the right to say what the Far-Left already agrees with. But if we say anything that may offend someone or people or groups that the New-Left in America believes deserves special treatment and name your minority group, except for Jews, we should shut up, boycotted and that our speech should even be outlawed. All of the political correctness groups and organizations that Bill Maher mentioned, none of them are Liberals.

Leftists, who are closeted Socialists, who call themselves Liberals or Progressive, (depending on which day it is and which sounds cooler) they are fake Liberals who don’t have the balls to admit to calling themselves what they are, which is fascists who believe they know what is best for everyone else and what people should say. And we should interact with each other. 

Leftists believe that freedom is not necessary and dangerous because these fascists will use their big government to manage everyone’s lives for them. I’m not sure the Far-Left in America believes in heterosexuality anymore and perhaps sees it as homophobic or something. Because their women sound like man-hating dykes. And their men sound like queens who see masculinity as evil or something.

The Right obviously has their crazies. They are called the Far-Right or New-Right that want to put America into a national time machine and take us all back to 1927 or something. How about 1915 before American women had the right to vote. 

But the Far-Left has their gigantic, national, nuthouse, that if you added them all up might not be able to fill the en entire city of Wichita. (Which is a mid-size city in Kansas, for anyone in the Northeast or West Coast whose never heard of it) But the Far-Left is so loud and vocal and fairly organized, even for a nuthouse, that they can make Liberals and Democrats look as bad as the Far-Right makes Conservatives and Republicans look.

Politico Magazine: Tom Keane: Elizabeth Warren Meets The Ted Kennedy Myth

Source:POLITICO Magazine- U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Source:The New Democrat

We should be really careful to comparing people who are very new to elected office like Senator Elizabeth Warren, just elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, after never holding a seat in Congress before, or ever in elected office, to one of the political giants in American history. Like Ted Kennedy who was a giant as a U.S. Senator regardless of party, who was one the few members of Congress who really knew how to make it work. What it took to pass a bill in the Senate. The Democrats he would be able to count on and the Republicans he would need to work with to get the bill out of the Senate. And then the people he would need to work with in the House, again in both parties to get the bill out of Congress. Once the Senate and House pass their bills. And then what would it take to get the President to pass the final legislation.

Senator Kennedy could be as partisan as anyone in Congress and in Washington or in the country. But again he knew how the institution, especially the Senate worked and what to say and what not to say in order to get his bills passed. Right now, Senator Warren is a flame thrower. Someone whose great at getting her partisan arguments out and her people behind her and getting and keeping her name in the public eye. But after little over two years in the Senate, not much to show for herself as a legislature. What they have in common, they use similar partisan rhetoric for Republican special interests and perhaps the Republican Party in general. What they also have in common, is that they both don’t tend to attack Republicans personally. But concentrate on their policies. Which is very uncommon in todays hyper-partisan Congress.

All I’m really saying here is that Senator Kennedy and Senator Warren are different in their approaches. They use similar rhetoric, but Ted Kennedy was in the Senate to legislate. He was a legislature for public service before anything. Which is why he was so good at it because he spent so much time on it and knew how to work with people. Especially people who tended to disagree with him, like Senator Orrin Hatch. And use his Irish wit and charm to make people feel good, but also to see how likable he was. Senator Warren right now at least to me sounds like a political activist who also happens to be a U.S. Senator. But who seems more interested in fighting the good fight. Even if that means gridlock gets continued. Instead of working with the other side even to make policies as good as they can be.

Thom Hartmann: This Week- Governor Mike Pence: Doesn't Understand Discrimination

Source: ABC News- ABC News's George Stephanopolous, interviewing Indiana Governor Mike Pence.

Source:The New Democrat

If a church whatever the church decided not perform gay weddings or inter-racial weddings or inter-ethnic weddings, they would be perfectly within their rights. Remember, Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Government won’t endorse religion or interfere without churches practice their religion. And members of churches are more than welcome to believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are not equal to straights. And even express those views in public. Just as long as they are inciting violence or falsely accusing gays of lets say bad behavior. But we are not talking about that, which is why this so-called Indiana Religious Freedom Law will either get thrown out by the courts. Or Indiana will decide to scrap their own law because of the lost of economic revenue that will come to Indiana. With different states and private business’s and groups deciding not to do business in Indiana. This is not about religious freedom, but creating some new right for private groups that are open for the public, to deny access to people simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Which is bigotry and will be thrown out.
Source:Thom Hartmann

Real Time With Bill Maher: Mike Huckabee

Source:The New Democrat

Is it just me, or does Mike Huckabee sound like he’s moderating? One of the advantages of living in such a huge vast diverse developed liberal democracy like America, is that we have all types of people, cultures and lifestyles. That we are all free to be ourselves. But we can’t force our lifestyle and way of life on to other people. And I think that is what Governor Huckabee was essentially saying, at least when it came to language and how we communicate with people.

If your way of life is going to church seven days a week and never doing anything without praying to Jesus first, dad works hard, mom stays at home and raise the kids, the only music you listen to is country or gospel, the only channel you get to watch is Fox News or CMT, great. If you want to party like it’s still 1955, except for the creation of Fox News, be my guess. Just as long as you don’t kidnap anyone from outside of your world and force your lifestyle on them. Or try to get big government to do that for you.

Americans can live in modern America. Which is really everywhere outside of the Bible Belt. And yes the Bible Belt covers a lot of land in America. Just not that many people. You got to go where the people are. Which is how Democrats win presidential elections with only winning half of the states or less. Because they win most if not all the big states. Or you can live in modern diverse America, where you may see five people at once who don’t look like you. And perhaps practice five different religions, or don’t practice at all. But one thing that makes us great is our diversity and freedom. We can all live our own lives, without big government forcing one lifestyle or another on the whole country.

CBS News: Fidel Castro On Face The Nation (1959)

Source:The New Democrat

This was just after the Castro Communists had taken power in Cuba in 1958, from the authoritarian Batista Regime there, after winning the Cuban Civil War. Cuba replaces one authoritarian regime from Fulgencio Batista and creates a new one with Fidel Castro. I saw a documentary about Che Guevara last week and it featured a lot of Fidel in the same film. For obvious reasons and they essentially said Fidel wasn’t sure exactly what type of government he would replace the Batista Regime with. That he became a Marxist Communist, leftist dictatorial authoritarian after he came to power as President of the New Communist Republic of Cuba. But Fidel was never a Democrat Socialist or otherwise. He’s always believed in socialism and what it can do for people. But never believed in governing the country through democratic means. With allowing any time of real opposition, or decentralizing power to anyone else outside of his regime in Cuba.

NYU Steinhardt: Tom Hayden- The Port Huron Statement 48 Years Later

Source:NYU Steinhardt- New-Left political activist Tom Hayden, speaking about The Port Huron Statement. 

Source:The New Democrat

I was hoping this interview would be about if not mostly about if not the whole thing being about the 1960s. The New Left, anti-war movement, the Vietnam War and everything else from that period. Especially since Allan Gregg was interviewing Tom Hayden. One of the key leaders of Students For a Democratic Society and the New Left in this period. Before Occupy Wall Street was literally born, but the late 1960s version of OWS. But at least half of this interview is about the current Iraq War and 2008 in general. Especially since this interview was done in 2008.

Being that as it may, what Iraq and Vietnam have in common is they are both wars by choices. At least from America’s point of view of getting involved in something that at the very least could be argued had no business being involved in, in the first place. And for what, to build a liberal democratic utopia in a country that doesn’t have any type of democracy up until new pre-2003. And this liberal democratic utopia was supposed to be put together by Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration of all people. Which isn’t that different from what Neoconservatives wanted to do in Vietnam in the 1960s.

The anti-war New Left of the 1960s, were middle-age yuppy Baby Boomers by 2002-03 when the drive for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was put together. When Congress gives President Bush the authority to go into Iraq. Most of the New Left of the 1960s grew up and moderated and became spouses and parents and working good middle class jobs and even starting their own private business. They became capitalists and private enterprisers in the 1980s and 90s and so on. Which was one thing they were trying to get rid of in the 1960s and 70s. People tend to moderate with experience and knowledge.
Source:NYU Steinhardt