Mother Jones: Mitt Romney On Obama Voters & The Entitlement Society

Source:Mother Jones- catching Mitt Romney being honest on the mic. If you really want to catch a politician telling the truth, or at least being honest, cover him or her, when they don't think you are there.

"Editor's note: Mother Jones has now removed the blurring from this video. Click here for the updated clip:   

 • Mitt Romney on Obama Voters  

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." 

From Mother Jones 

What Mitt Romney is basically saying here, is that the people who will vote for President Barack Obama, are the people who believe that Americans shouldn't have to do anything in life, in order to live well and live a quality life. 

All of this leftism in the Barack Obama movement, might have been true in 2008 when the Far-Left of the Democratic Party (the real Socialists in the party) thought that then Senator Obama was one of them. But those folks, like The Young Turks, the Salon's, The Nation's, the Noam Chomsky's of the world, are now calling Barack Obama a moderate Republican, ideologically, a corporatist, a sellout. Militant Black Nationalists are now calling President Obama an Uncle Tom. 

When you are bad card player, or at least a losing card player, you have do go with the only card that you have left. The American people have basically made up their mind about President Barack Obama. They like the man, they think he's a good President, but not a great President, and that he's better than anyone whose tried to run against him. 

I think Mitt Romney, at least when he's being honest with himself, knows all of this as far as how Independent voters and Democrats feel about President Obama. And because of this, he's going with the only card that he had left in a weak deck, which is try to to make Barack Obama look like some Un-American radical or something. And we'll see if that works in about 6 weeks.

Russia Today: 'Wealthy Welfare UK to Freeze Benefits As Inflation Bites'

Source:Russia Today talking about British Welfare.

"Game Over UK.

I do Not own this Content, it belongs to Russia Today." 

From Sub Zero 703

"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

Republicans in Americans (assuming they are still capable of learning, probably not a safe bet at this point) should look at the British model when it comes to Austerity economics and look at how bad the UK economy is right now and perhaps reconsider if thats the model. If they want to push in the United States, that has an economy thats much better off than Britain's right now.

Laura Flanders: Pam Brown- On Occupy Student Debt

Source:The Laura Flanders Show- interviewing Pam Brown.

"We as a society view our monetary debts as a moral issue: We took out the money, we should have to pay it back. The problem with this logic is that the money we are giving the banks, financial institutions and our government never existed before the interest we incurred piled up. 

Pam Brown of the Occupy Student Debt Campaign and Strike Debt says there's another way out of our predicament: If our numbers are large enough, we can collectively refuse to pay back the trillions that are being extorted from us. Watch the full conversation with Laura Flanders and visit GRITtv.org to learn more."

Source:Laura Flanders

At risk of stating the obvious and perhaps introducing some people to common sense: if you don't want to be buried in debt (like mobsters who bury unfriendly witnesses) then don't borrow too much money. 

You should be spending your 20s and 30s building your career. Not looking for the cheapest, most dangerous place to live, in the most dangerous place and perhaps sharing that place with 2-3 other people (who are also buried in debt, or perhaps don't even have college degrees and work multiple jobs just to survive) because you are buried in debt and can't afford to live anywhere else, even if you actually have a good income.

Another risk at stating the obvious: college is  not free. Regardless of what any left-wing politician might tell you about having some plan to make college free for everyone, it never will be. Even if you have a scholarship, you have to go to that particular school and play sports there or be in some other program that the school values and complete it successfully, to keep that scholarship. 

I'm all in favor of making college affordable for everyone. But you don't do that by promising the world to everyone (which is what a 4 year college degree can get you) and telling them it's not going to cost them anything. You do that by making college more affordable upfront and empowering more parents to put money away for their kids college education, as well as telling students that if you serve your country one way or another, for a certain period of time, the government will wipe away your college financially. But you can't make something free that comes with a cost for everyone. 

Thom Hartmann: Senator Sherrod Brown: 'Not Your Eisenhower Republicans'

Source:Thom Hartmann- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican, Kansas) 34th President of the United States.

"Thom Hartmann talks with Sherrod Brown, Senator Sherrod Brown

Bio: U.S. Senator (D-OH)

Website:Senator Sherrod Brown about changes in both political parties over the years." 

From Thom Hartmann

In case it isn't obvious enough, (and if it isn't, you were probably born last night, at least when it comes to American politics) today's Republican Party, is not even the Dwight Eisenhower Republican Party, let alone the Grand Ole Party. And in complete fairness, today's Democratic Party is no longer John F. Kennedy's party, the faction of the Democratic Party that I'm from. I completely agree with Thom Hartmann (for perhaps the first time this year) and Sherrod Brown, who I tend to agree with more often, on a lot of other different things.

CBS News: Mitt Romney: 'I Won't Round Up Illegal Immigrants and Deport Them'

Source:CBS News- Governor Mitt Romney (Republican, Massachusetts) sounding reasonable on immigration. But he also goes by Flip Flopper, so wait til tomorrow and you might get a different position from him.

"Mitt Romney on Wednesday said at Univision's "Meet the Candidates" forum in Coral Gables, Fla., that his plan for immigration reform "isn't to deport people."

From CBS News

Looks like Mitt Romney is on a "who can I offend next tour." Yesterday it was 47% of the country. Today it was Tea Part Nationalists on illegal immigration. The way he's going, whose going to be left to vote for Mitt, especially after his family votes?

Brave New Foundation: 'Law & Disorder- How the System Really Works'

Source:Brave New Foundation- Dennis Farinia, when he was on Seasons 15 and 16 of Law & Order. RIP

Source:The Daily Journal

"On Law & Order, everything makes sense: the police chase after violent bad guys, the accused get a fair trial, and justice is blind. But is that the reality in the United States? Watch this video to have your mind blown about how unjust our system truly is.

Produced with the partnership of the American Civil Liberties Union, Constitution Project, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers."

From Brave New Foundation

A lot of these law enforcement shows about the justice system, all though most of them are entertaining, only focus on a small percentage of the crimes. But again we are talking about entertainment here. Who would want to watch a show that’s about shoplifting, or traffic stops, drunk driving an so-forth. People need to be able to differentiate between reality and entertainment and many times they are not the same thing. But even if the law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it is that it a lot about drug crimes and drug offenders and that a lot of these supposed crimes happen in African-American communities in urban areas, these shows would be accused of racism. For always highlighting young African-American men as suspects and criminals.

If these law enforcement shows showed the criminal justice system for what it really is, that it is basically about low-level felonies like shoplifting and misdemeanors, who would watch? Again I get back to the entertainment factor here. A lot of these shows as far as the crimes and how the detectives and prosecutors do their jobs even though they aren’t completely accurate, are at least realistic. As professionals in the criminal justice system will tell you. And even though they do tend to concentrate on a low percentage of crimes that are committed in America, they tend to do a good and accurate job. And they are realistic in the sense that crimes in America are committed by all Americans as far as ethnicity and race. And they don’t focus on one racial, or ethnic group in America.

Again to go back to Hollywood and reality it’s not the job of Hollywood to show exactly what life if like and the subjects that they cover. Their job is to be entertaining and hopefully realistic. Smart viewers want both, but unfortunately for lot of Americans they simply want to be entertained when they are watching TV. And even if these shows don’t show the criminal justice system for exactly what it is, again its Hollywood and if you’re a smart person you’re going to anyway how realistic the show is anyway by how informed you are about how the country works. And how much you know about current affairs in America including criminal justice, or whatever the issue is.

CBS News: Mike Wallace: ‘The Homosexuals (1967)’

Source:CBS News- from the 1967 CBS News documentary.

Source:The Daily Journal

”It’s been nearly 50 years since CBS News first took on the subject of gay rights. It was in a documentary. You’ll recognize the host, Mike Wallace, but you won’t recognize your country.

“Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality,” reported Wallace in the documentary. “A CBS poll shows two out of three Americans look on homosexuality with disgust, discomfort, or fear.”

The year was 1967 and whoever named the program cut straight to the chase: “CBS Reports: The Homesexuals.”

From CBS News

“The Homosexuals” is a 1967 episode of the documentary television series CBS Reports. The hour-long broadcast featured a discussion of a number of topics related to homosexuality and homosexuals. Mike Wallace anchored the episode, which aired on March 7, 1967. Although this was the first network documentary dealing with the topic of homosexuality, it was not the first televised in the United States. That was The Rejected, produced and aired in 1961 on KQED, a public television station out of San Francisco.Three years in the making, “The Homosexuals” went through two producers and multiple revisions. The episode included interviews with several gay men, psychiatrists, legal experts and cultural critics, interspersed with footage of a gay bar and a police sex sting. “The Homosexuals” garnered mixed critical response.”

Source:Kim Smythe- from the 1967 CBS News documentary.

From Kim Smythe

“Veteran journalist Mike Wallace, who died Saturday at age 93, had many claims to fame and one credit that might be considered a claim to infamy — his participation in the sensationalistic 1960s documentary The Homosexuals.

Wallace would later express regret about the tone of the documentary, which aired only once, March 7, 1967, on CBS. Hosted and narrated by Wallace, it characterized gay men as promiscuous and lonely, given to fleeting, anonymous sexual encounters. It acknowledged the discrimination they faced, but with “no sense of righteous indignation” about that, the journal Film Threat once noted. The program largely ignored lesbians. Still, it marked a breakthrough in gay visibility on television.

“Years after the broadcast, Mike Wallace would admit regret that The Homosexuals was not more balanced and sympathetic in its focus,” according to the Film Threat article. “In 1995, Wallace made a surprise appearance at New York’s Lighthouse Cinema, which was showing The Homosexuals as part of a Gay Pride line-up. The audience treated Wallace with deep respect and the veteran newsman hosted an impromptu Q&A session after the film was screened.”

Source:The Advocate- from Mike Wallace's 1967 documentary.

From The Advocate

If you look at this documentary especially by the standards and culture of today, Mike Wallace’s 1967 documentary about homosexuality looks very homophobic. It wouldn’t be made today at least the way it was written and the people that were interviewed, especially Christian-Right folks who think that homosexuality should be a crime and we should go back to Beaver Cleaver’s and Ozzie and Harriet’s 1950s America. And the Far-Left political correctness movement would beat the hell out it talking about how bigoted the documentary is.

But to state the obvious: 1967 is not 2012. The view that homosexuality was a crime and a sin was actually mainstream even in the late 1960s. And if you had no issues with gays and homosexuality back then and believed gays should be treated equally as straights, you would be considered a radical back then.

In my personal opinion and I believe I’m part of a solid majority today in 2012, gays are entitled to the same legal and constitutional rights and responsibilities as straights, just as I believe that ethnic and racial minorities have the same rights and responsibilities as European-Americans and even Anglo-Saxons. But if I was around in 1967 with those same views, I would be the radical. And people who are considered Far-Rightists today, would be part of the mainstream when it comes to American public opinion and culture.