It was a similar crew of conservative justices on the Supreme Court that decided that their long-held beliefs on states’ rights were irrelevant and made George W. Bush our next president in 2000. Now, they’re back!!! And they might decide yet another presidential election.

Imagine the damage it does to President Obama to strip him of his signature accomplishment right before the election. It would also allow the Republicans to say — “See, we told you so! It was unconstitutional all along. It was a wild, socialist over-reach of big government.” It creates a permanent stain on the law — as if there was something horribly wrong with it all along. And it takes it off the books at a moment when it is still relatively unpopular. So, before any of the popular provisions are put into effect it would go in the record books as a complete disaster.

Why don’t you just hand the Republicans the election? Which is, of course, exactly what the conservatives of this court would love to do. These conservative justices are given far too much deference in the media. They are largely partisan hacks.

Antonin Scalia is a complete fraud. He will bend any so-called principle to get to the political result he wants. If it’s upholding anti-gay legislation or striking down federal laws he doesn’t like, he is a huge advocate for states’ rights. But if it’s marijuana legalization or euthanasia or Bush v. Gore, then he hates states’ rights. So, which one is it? Here’s how you can tell — which side is the Republican Party on?

Remember, this is a guy who goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and attends political fundraisers with the Koch brothers. Of course, he doesn’t recuse himself from any cases that involve those people. In fact, he votes on their side nearly 100% of the time.

We’ve been hearing for at least thirty years about the dangers of activist judges. That it is so wrong for unelected officials, like judges, to invalidate laws made by the people’s representatives. Now, all of a sudden, the Republicans love that idea! They want to interpret the Commerce Clause in a way that it has not been interpreted since 1937. They want to invalidate a sitting president’s signature piece of legislation for the first time in 75 years. And their hack, partisan justices on the Supreme Court can’t wait to do their bidding.

The way Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to vote is certain. There isn’t a single Republican position those guys haven’t wanted to fondle. They will enthusiastically wrap their legs around the idea that the mandate is unconstitutional. And they will double down by saying it strikes down the rest of the law with it.

John Roberts plays a moderate on TV, so there is some questions about which way he’ll go. But in the real world, he always votes with the conservatives because… he is deeply conservative (or more accurately, party line Republican, no matter where the so-called conservative position lies).

So, that leaves us with Justice Kennedy, who is a genuine swing vote. But remember he is the one that swung toward Bush and meddled with how Florida counts its votes despite decades of empty talk about states’ rights. If he sides with the rest of the conservative justices, he will forever cement his place on the Hack Hall of Fame as one of the most deeply partisan justices we have ever had. If he helped to decide two presidential elections based on which party he likes rather than his so-called deeply held beliefs, like his oft-repeated deference to precedent, than it would be hard to find a more political and disingenuous justice.

One last thought, which is on the sad incompetence of the Democratic Party. They should be screaming “activist judges” from the rooftops. Instead they are meekly mumbling about how it’s unclear which way the court is going to go and how we shouldn’t pre-judge. I got news for you — the Republicans have been pre-judging your bill for years now. You should consider fighting back.

But the primary responsibility is the president’s. Why did you agree to the Republican idea of mandates in the first place?

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the original sponsor of the mandate in the Senate back in 1993. The Heritage Foundation championed the idea. Mitt Romney was applauded wildly by conservatives when he passed a mandate in Massachusetts. Did the president think they would like him more if he agreed to their idea? No, they have always opposed you at every turn, and they always will. They turned on their own idea the minute you agreed to it — and now they’re using it to kill your whole bill.

When is the president ever going to learn that agreeing with Republicans never helps him? It never helps the country. All it does is make it easier for them to beat you because you made the fatal mistake of agreeing with them.

The post Supreme Court Might Decide Their Second Election appeared first on The Faster Times.

But it appeared for a while that the one guy fighting against it was President Obama. I was incredibly encouraged by that. I shouldn’t have been. It turned out at the end that he was threatening to veto the bill because he wanted it to have even more executive power, not less. This president has been a disaster for civil liberties. Every time I think about the fact that he used to be a constitutional law professor, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Indefinite detentions, summary executions of US citizens abroad without a trial, warrantless wiretapping and much, much more. All of the things we were outraged Bush did – and then some. Honestly, it makes me feel a little sick that I voted for him. At least, I could say that I fought tooth and nail against Bush.

And civil liberties abuses are the tip of the iceberg in disappointment with this president. Then there is the comedy of financial reform which doesn’t reform a damn thing. There are the zero prosecutions of the top bankers who destroyed our economy through their fraud, took our money and now spit in our face with it. There is the extension of the Bush tax cuts. There is the cave in on nearly every negotiation (the payroll tax cut being the exception that proves the rule (by the way, he “won” on more tax cuts, a profoundly Republican idea)). His crowning achievement of healthcare reform was a proposal originally written by the Heritage Foundation. There isn’t a Republican idea that President Obama didn’t want to cuddle with and adopt as his own.

Now, the argument goes that he might be bad, but the Republicans are worse. Of course. Right now, Newt Gingrich is on the campaign trail arguing that Mitt Romney isn’t kind enough to the rich. I’m not kidding. He is trying to make hay out of the fact that Romney takes capital taxes down to zero percent for only people making below $200,000. Newt thinks that’s discrimination against the rich and he would take it down to zero for everybody. Then he would make your kids clean the rich kids’ toilets in school.

I follow politics for a living; I’m not unaware of how hideous the Republican choices are. But that doesn’t mean that we should pretend that President Obama has been brilliant because we’re scared of the big, bad Republicans. That would be fundamentally dishonest.

And to be honest, I’m really disappointed that he does not have a primary opponent. This country is dying for someone who is going to take on the establishment. Who is that going to be on our side – Barack Obama? On that, I know whether to laugh or cry. Every time I think about the idea that President Obama might be against the establishment, I laugh and laugh and laugh. There is never been a guy who was this enamored with the establishment. If he had wrestling nickname it would be The Establishment.

The guy who appointed Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley (and a list of hundreds of others, including two new Fed appointments, one of which is a Republican who worked for the Carlyle Group) is not a guy who is interested in changing the system at all. Change was a cutesy slogan he used to trick us into thinking he was on our side.

I would have loved a progressive alternative, but apparently we are not going to get one (except for Rocky Anderson running on the Justice Party ticket). Primaries are the perfect place to send a message without taking away votes in the general election. But it didn’t happen because the Democratic establishment says we must fall in line because we wouldn’t want to hurt the agenda of the president. The agenda of the president sucks and is deeply Republican. I’d love to at least get him to reconsider that agenda for a second.

But there is one thing we can do right now that doesn’t really hurt the chances of the president getting re-elected and doesn’t help Republicans one bit. It is an idea that Occupy Iowa came up with. In the Iowa caucuses you can vote for “uncommitted.” In fact, since the 1970′s “uncommitted” has won twice on the Democratic side and it beat Bob Dole in 1980. Of course, the Republican Party has shut down this option on their side. They say you can vote that way in the GOP field but they will not register those votes or send those delegates. Of course, they’re the GOP; they have no interest in your dissent.

But if all of those people were to go and participate on the Democratic side they might have an effect. If “uncommitted” beat President Obama on the Democratic side in Iowa that would make some news. That might even get the attention of The Establishment. So far, he has only responded to right-wing pressure. He is the consummate politician, so if there was actually a little bit of pressure on his left he might have to respond to it, especially during an election season. Wouldn’t it be amazing if President Obama acted like a progressive on some issue because he was worried about the voters?

By the way, this strategy also has the benefit of being accurate. I am “uncommitted” toward Obama. I’m uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

If you live in Iowa, please send a message to the President for the rest of us. We voted for change last time, apparently you didn’t hear us. If you don’t hear us soon, you might be the one that gets changed.

The Young Turks on Current

The post Vote Against Obama in Iowa appeared first on The Faster Times.

1. They are the establishment. They don’t challenge the politicians, the government or the system. They are perfectly content to help maintain the status quo.

2. They trade access for positive coverage. In order to get political officials on their shows, they treat them with kid gloves. The single largest factor in making political decisions is campaign donations, yet they almost never ask them about that or talk about it on any of their shows.

3. They do non-stop talking points, yet no one ever says anything. It’s just people talking past each other in a very boring, scripted movie we’ve seen before.

4. They confuse neutrality with objectivity. If the Cowboys and Steelers play and the Steelers win 21-0, and you say the Cowboys and Steelers both played equally well – you have lied to your audience. You are neutral, but nowhere near objective.

So, we set out to do a political talk show where we break all of those rules. This is the beginning. We hope you join us somewhere down this road. Together, let’s be the change we want to see in the media.

You Can Participate in the Show (Current, 7PM ET) By Clicking Here

The post How We Can Change the Media appeared first on The Faster Times.

In fact, seven out of ten Republican voters say holding the right positions is more important than electability – which goes to show Romney’s main argument on the importance of electability is not working. The bad numbers keep piling up, as 20% of conservative voters say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion. It’s even worse among very conservative voters, 32% of whom have no qualms about discriminating against him because of his faith. Those are shockingly high numbers of people who have already eliminated him (unjustly), and those are just the ones admitting it.

But conservative voters are right about their central arguments against Romney – he is a flip-flopper, he is a slimy politician and he will say anything to get elected. These Republicans are thirsting for a real conservative to vote for. Meanwhile, there has been an absolute implosion of the other conservative candidates. Bachmann lasted about five seconds. Herman Cain is in a tailspin now, but was obviously never qualified to begin with. And Rick Perry might as well have screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he blew himself up in last night’s debate.

Huckabee is an unquestioned social conservative, so I think he would win Iowa and South Carolina with relative ease. But more importantly, he is an excellent fake populist. I’m confident that in the end, like all Republicans, he would do whatever the big banks want him to do. But he talks a good game about feeling your pain and being against the powerful that are screwing you. He is the definition of folksy. And the country is in desperate search of folksy as opposed to slimy.

In fact, I think he is far more electable than Romney is when it comes to taking on Obama. President Obama struggles mightily at faking populism. And in reality, he has an enormous track record of helping the big banks in getting almost everything they ever wanted (he made the fatal mistake of once hurting their feelings though by calling them “fat cats”). Romney is the most obviously pro-Wall Street candidate in history, when the country is in a massively anti-Wall Street mood. I think Huckabee stands an excellent chance of cleaning both of their clocks.

But apparently, he would prefer not to. Who stands this good a chance of being the next president – and doesn’t take it? Jesus, how good is that Fox News salary? I know that people think he has grown too fat and comfortable, but now that there isn’t even that much time before the first caucus he wouldn’t even have to discomfort himself that much. If he doesn’t get in, he will go down in history as Huckabee the Scrivener – the man who could have been president and preferred not to.

The post Huckabee the Scrivener: The Man Who Could be President, But Prefers Not To appeared first on The Faster Times.

Here’s why – they don’t even believe their own positions. They want someone who is massively conservative and at the same time agrees with them on policy. The problem is the voters aren’t nearly as conservative as they think they are. So they love the tough talking governor from Texas until they find out he wants to get rid of Social Security. They like that Michele Bachmann doesn’t believe in global warming until they realize that she doesn’t believe in it because she’s bat-shit crazy.

If you choose ignorance as your party ideology why should it surprise you that you have completely ignorant party leaders? But it does, every single time. Watch, it’ll happen again. This time with Herman Cain.

The voters are going to wake up a week from now and realize they’re not sure they want someone leading the free world who doesn’t know what Ubeki-beki-beki-stan is or what his own position on abortion is. They love his ignorance when it comes to science and basic economics, but they hate it when it shows how unqualified he is.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. Someone who is remotely competent or sentient recognizes that 97% of the world’s scientists are right about climate change (including even Koch funded scientists), that cutting deficits during tough economic times does not stimulate the economy and that firing state workers means we have less workers. But those are all against the stated position of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. So, what is a Republican voter to do?

The answer is to fall in love with another conservative politician this week and find out he is a blithering idiot the next. Or worse yet, find out you don’t really agree with any of those positions when they affect you (get your government hands off my Medicare!). That’s the schizophrenia of the Republican electorate — they keep switching leaders because they don’t even believe their own positions.

Join Wolf PAC Here

The post Why Republican Voters Can’t Make Up Their Mind appeared first on The Faster Times.

I can tell you what any progressive who has been paying attention thought, “Oh boy, here we go again.”

President Obama has now changed the day of his address to Congress to accomodate the Republicans. They were having a GOP presidential debate on the original date he picked. So, Boehner told him to move his speech. He is the president for Christ’s sake. Of course, they should have accomodated him, not the other way around. But as usual, President Obama bowed.

So, this leads to the eternal question of whether Obama is just weak or if he is a brilliant strategist who has been playing rope-a-dope all along. I am so silly that I still had hope. My hope this morning was that Obama was laying a trap for the Republicans. He picks a day for his speech that is the same as the GOP debate. Then if Boehner says he won’t let him give the speech on that day, he seems so petty and harsh.

That way, either the president gives his big speech on jobs and bigfoots the Republican contenders or the Republicans look disrespectful and petulant for turning down the president. Well, if you’re playing rope-a-dope, that’s not a bad manuever. But it turns out that’s not what he was doing at all. He just stumbled into this problem and then stumbled out when he let Boehner dictate when he could and could not have his speech. That looks so sad.

You see, if you’re playing rope-a-dope, at some point you have to actually swing. When your opponent has worn himself out knocking you around the ring — you counter-attack. But that counter-attack is never coming. We’re holding our collective breath in vain.

Why is this definitely not rope-a-dope? Because Obama hates risk. Even his most ardent supporters will tell you that he does not like to take big risks. He thinks it is imprudent. They see that as one of his strengths. McCain was a wild gambler, Obama was a cautious and smart poker player. That’s why he won the election.

But would a man who dislikes risk that much risk his entire presidency on a strategy where he gets pummeled for three straight years and then finally comes out swinging at the very end? No way. That’s a tremendous amount of risk. I don’t mind taking plenty of risks and I wouldn’t do anything half that crazy.

No, the answer is much simpler. He doesn’t realize he’s getting pummeled. He thinks this is all still a genius strategy to capture centrists by compromising on every single little thing. He is not trying to put on an appearnace of weakness to lull his opponent into a false sense of compacency. He doesn’t even realize he is being weak. He’s the one with the false sense of complacency. As he’s getting knocked around the ring, he thinks he’s winning.

These guys in the Obama camp are in for a horrible, rude awakening. Sometime in the next year, they are going to blink and realize they are lying flat on their back on the canvas. Then as they finally stumble up, they’ll realize they should have started fighting 11 rounds ago. Then a panic will set in, but I’m afraid it will be too late by then.

Here is what all voters, and especially independents, despise and disdain in a politician — weakness. Nobody wants to see their leader get beat to a pulp every night and then bow his head again.

There is no secret, brilliant strategy. This White House is in a bubble. They think they’re winning when the roof is about to cave in.

Watch The Young Turks Here The Young Turks on Facebook / Twitter / Google+

The post Is Obama Playing Rope-a-Dope? appeared first on The Faster Times.

We declared two wars to target Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. They were in Afghanistan and Iraq. We killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

The idea that Iraq had anything to do with Osama bin Laden and the attacks against this country was comical and tragic at the same time. Now that we have killed bin Laden in Pakistan, can we ask the incredibly wrong neo-cons what Iraq had to do with 9/11 again? And will they apologize for leading us into Iraq when it turns out we were right, the enemy was many countries away?

But that’s obvious, though it will not be mentioned enough today. So, let’s talk about Afghanistan. Yes, we did chase bin Laden from there initially — about ten years ago. But since then we have been fighting a senseless war with the Taliban and God knows who else, when we knew or suspected that bin Laden was in Pakistan. So, what did all of those nearly pointless campaigns in different parts of Afghanistan accomplish when Osama bin Laden was sitting in a house in the suburbs of Pakistan’s capital?

Bottom line — endless war didn’t work. In the end, we found the man who authorized the attacks on 9/11 through good intelligence work and killed him with a very small, targeted strike with our best trained forces. We didn’t use an army battalion or a surge or huge ground troops backed up by Abrams tanks. It was a surgical strike pulled off by a small unit. Imagine if we had invaded Pakistan instead to accomplish our objective (they were only nominally cooperating with us — he was sitting right outside their capital). How little sense would that have made? Just about as much sense as the other wars made — not much at all.

War is the wrong strategy when fighting terrorism. Whether it was our tactical strike against an Al Qaeda leader in Somalia or this tactical strike in Pakistan, it’s obvious what the much better strategy is compared to big, lumbering, incredibly costly and casualty heavy wars that we have started in the past. I hope we learn from our mistakes and our successes.

Watch The Young Turks Here “Like” The Young Turks on Facebook Here

The post Bin Laden Dead – War Was Not the Answer appeared first on The Faster Times.

So, after getting no credit for his original $40 billion concession, then the negotiations began at square one. The Republicans claimed in February that they wanted $32 billion in cuts from that point on. About a week ago, the president came out an announced that they had given the Republicans another $33 billion in cuts — a billion more than they originally asked for. And still the Republicans wanted more.

Why not? They’re dealing with the world’s worst negotiator, why not ask for more? After February they came up with a brilliant good cop-bad cop strategy with the Tea Party, where they had the Tea Party force them to go to $61 billion in demands. Which pushed the spectrum out further to the right. They know President Obama will go to the middle of any spectrum, no matter how radical. And then once they had baited Obama out to the $33 billion number, which was past their original goal, they baited him out even further. Finally, they got him to $38.5 billion in cuts an hour before the deadline.

So, in the end, he got no credit for the original giant cuts, he got no credit for going a billion past the Republican’s wildest dreams and he had to give them an extra $5.5 billion to get a deal. But what he doesn’t realize is that the shutdown would have been a disaster for the Republicans — they never wanted that. They were playing him the whole time. When Boehner came back with the deal, he got a rousing ovation from his side, including the Tea Party faction.

It was a put on. The whole time when the Tea Party was demanding the whole $61 billion, they were just playing their part in the game. They were the bad cop to make sure Obama made the deal with Boehner, the good cop. They must had a good laugh at the end.

First, I want to make clear I am not a Monday morning quarterback. Anyone who watches me on The Young Turks or on MSNBC knows that I have been saying all along that Obama was going to fall for this trick and that he was going to go way past $33 billion. It’s just who he is. He hates conflict. There almost isn’t any deal you can’t get him to sign off on. And that’s my whole point for writing this — we can not have him do this next time!

Next time, the negotiations are over trillions, not billions. If he meets them more than halfway — as he has done every single time now — it will be a colossal disaster. Whenever Republican presidents try to cut Social Security or Medicare, they run into a brick wall. If the Republicans use President Obama to help them do that instead, then he will have done more damage than a Republican president can.

I hear from Democrats every single time that they’ll fight the next time. And it’s never the next time. Well, this time we’ve hit the wall. The next negotiations will be inarguably the most important. If the president obamas this (yes, I used it as a verb), it will be catastrophic.

Now, I want to ask even the most ardent Obama supporters — do you really believe the president is going to hold strong the next time around? Even you don’t believe that, right? It’s not who he is. He will look to get past partisan politics. What’s the only way to do that when one side is being obstinate? To give in to them. How many times have we seen this movie?

I didn’t write this to rub it in the face of the feckless Democrats who always wind up playing the role of the Washington Generals to the Republican Globetrotters (remember the Democrats have the White House and the Senate — but they let the GOP run the place like they are totally in charge). I wrote it to tell you how incredibly important it is that you put real pressure on the president from the left. He will move to the middle of any spectrum!

If you don’t help push the spectrum to the left, the Republicans will move it massively to the right — and the president will fall for it.

The whole point of the insane, draconian, ridiculous Paul Ryan budget proposal for next year was to move the spectrum all the way to the radical right, so that they can lure Democrats to a false middle, that is in reality the far right.

It’s time to stop playing nice with Democrats. Good cop-good cop doesn’t work. We need a bad cop. We need a strong progressive wing to keep shouting “no deal!” every time the White House wants to concede (which will be every time).

You can ignore this, blame me and go hug the president one more time, but you won’t be doing your side any favors. If you actually care about policy and progressive priorities, you must get tough with the president right now. There is no next time.

Click Here to “Like” The Young Turks on Facebook Click Here to Watch The Young Turks

The post Progressives Must Stand up to the President appeared first on The Faster Times.

He didn’t shoot Gabrielle Giffords randomly and it turned out she just happened to be a politician. He sought her out, targeted her and then tried to kill her based on the fact that she was a politician. He thought the government was the problem and it was unresponsive to his psychotic demands on grammar and currency.

So, is Loughner a psycho? Obviously. And that’s not just because he shot all of those innocent people, but also because it is abundantly clear from his writings and videos that he has significant mental issues.

But why does the act have to be either psychotic or political? It’s obviously both. It was a psychotic act driven by his political beliefs. What’s so hard to understand about that?

Then, the next question is whether both sides are equally at fault. Again, I’m confused by this question. What the hell did the Democrats or liberals do here? Nothing, except get shot. How can the media possibly attach false equivalency to this? Are the Democrats equally culpable for getting shot as the conservatives are for shooting them?

Loughner shot a Democrat. Gee, I wonder which side he was on? He hated the government and thought they were out to get us. Gee, I wonder which side he was on?

I thought conservatives said liberals love big government. But now some have the audacity to claim Loughner was a liberal. But if one thing is obvious from Loughner’s political writings, it was that he hated the government. So, which one is it — do liberals love or hate the government?

Come on, this is all a smoke screen to make sure people don’t see what’s going on here. In the last two years, there have been dozens of attacks and shootings aimed at government officials and political organizations. Every single one of them was directed at liberals, Democrats or the government. Now we’re to believe that’s the world’s largest coincidence?

The conservative hate-mongers don’t create psychos. We get that there will always be disturbed individuals out there. But the right-wing directs these lunatics to a source. They channel their fear, anger and paranoia — and they point them toward the Democrats. They use them as hate seeking missiles.

They load them up them up with violent imagery, whether it’s talk of cross-hairs or second amendment remedies or the tree of liberty being refreshed with blood. Then when they get a violent reaction they pretend to be surprised and outraged that anyone would suggest they were the least bit culpable. The reality is that it is a simple formula — violence in, violence out. Violent imagery in, violent results out.

If pretending this isn’t political or that somehow it is both-sided doesn’t work (which they shouldn’t worry about because so far it has worked perfectly in white-washing their culpability in the media), then they say it’s political exploitation to point out what they have done.

How the hell are we supposed to point out the problem if we can’t mention the issue for fear of being charged with political exploitation? Would it be exploiting the tragedy of the BP oil spill to point out that maybe we should be a little careful about oil drilling? Or are we not supposed to make the most obvious points so that we don’t offend the other political side’s delicate sensibilities?

You know who exploited a tragedy for political gain? George W. Bush and the entire Republican Party. They used 9/11 as a gimmick to get re-elected. Then they exploited it to attack a random country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It is nearly impossible to exploit a tragedy anymore than they did with 9/11. And maybe that’s why they level the charge against us now, because they know that’s the first thing they’d do.

But pointing out that conservative commentators and politicians have been inciting their followers isn’t done to get anyone elected. I don’t even know whose election this would theoretically effect. This isn’t done to press some policy agenda (again, outside of gun control, I can’t even think of what agenda we are supposed to theoretically be pushing for). This is to point out an obvious fact that is getting people killed — if you incite violence, you get violence.

To pretend that isn’t happening all across the country everyday on talk radio, etc. is to be willfully blind to reality — and to allow it to happen again. And trust me, next time they’ll also say no one could have seen it coming and that whatever we do we mustn’t talk about it. Preventing another tragedy like this would be such terrible exploitation. Better to be quiet and let them do it again.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow The Young Turks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/theyoungturks “Like” The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

Clarifications:

I didn’t think these clarifications were necessary, but apparently they are for some. So, here it goes.

1. I am not saying all conservatives are responsible. I got an e-mail from a conservative saying I am blaming him for breathing. I am not blaming him at all (unless he had a national platform and talked about “targeting” liberals, Democrats, etc.), let alone for breathing.

2. I don’t believe the proper remedy is limiting anyone’s freedom of speech. I never suggested that. In fact, I am sure if anyone passed such a law, not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be almost exclusively used against the left.

2a. Of course, I don’t mind Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin attacking Democrats. That’s their job. I am asking them to use some caution in how they frame their attacks and not to use violent imagery that eggs people on.

On the show, I was very specific on what kinds of language I was referring to (I also have a link in the story above to examples). Here is the video where I list some of the examples of conservatives using violent imagery.

3. I don’t think that Jared Loughner necessarily listened to an episode of the Glenn Beck show and then went and did this (although others, like Byron Williams did specifically do just that). I am saying that these conservative leaders are purposely creating an environment in which this type of violence festers.

4. Lastly, I am not saying that these conservative leaders celebrated this news or wanted this specific outcome. I assume they are still human. But they knew, or should have known, that they were creating the environment that led to this kind of violence — and they didn’t give a damn.

What did you think was going to happen when you kept telling people to grab their guns, the government was endangering their family and way of life and that they should defend themselves? This was going to happen. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Related Articles:

“Blood Libel”: Palin Sabotages Her Eight Minute Video with Two Words (TFT)

Sarah Palin’s Pathetic Statement on the Arizona Shootings (TFT)

The post Was Jared Loughner’s Act Political? appeared first on The Faster Times.

The interview was heated (you can see it here). I think it is absurd to vote Republican if you’re gay. The party ran their whole campaign against gay Americans in 2004 and 2006 — and bragged about it. The GOP just overwhelmingly voted against repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And there are only a million other examples of how Republicans are against every gay rights issue. Of course a gay person can be conservative on economic issues or on foreign policy, but to say you’re going to vote for a party that hates you is beyond irrational.

Well, apparently Ann Coulter doesn’t agree. She watched the interview, then tweeted:

Though I’m flattered that Ann thought it was a great video, there seems to be another issue here. Coulter called me a “retarded person.” Now, I am not the least bit bothered by that. In fact, I am greatly amused at Coulter challenging anyone else’s intelligence or cognitive abilities. But I do know someone who should be steaming mad about this — Sarah Palin.

I thought Sarah Palin had banned the R-word. Palin called for Rahm Emaunel to be fired when he used that word and added:

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities — and the people who love them — is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.

Does that mean Sarah Palin also thinks Ann Coulter should be fired? Does Ann Coulter have a job she can be fired from? What does Ann Coulter do with her life? Come to think of it, what does Sarah Palin do? More importantly, how will these ladies settle this?

Does Sarah Palin think that the word is less “unacceptable” or “heartbreaking” when a Republican uses it? Or is she just as outraged by Coulter as she was by Emanuel? I mean, Sarah Palin wouldn’t be enough of hypocrite to attack a Democrat over the word but not a Republican, right? I look forward to her response.

Click Here To Watch My Response to Ann Coulter’s Tweet.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks “Like” The Young Turks on Facebook: www.facebook.com/tytnation

The post Ann Coulter Called Me “Retarded” – Will Sarah Palin Speak Out? appeared first on The Faster Times.