if there was another attorney that was going to argue a case, he was upset. stories about him being upset about the fact that he didn't get to go argue a certain case. so, he's kobe bryant. he's the guy that wants to shine at the end of the game. so you see a man who on one level of the court system as an attorney lost a lot of cases in order to get to the supreme court and argue cases in front of greater minds, in front of men who are seeing the world from a perspective that is larger. and in that instance, he won 29 out of 32 times. and i think there's a great lesson in that. one, that you have to lose in order to win. and two, that you cannot be afraid to lose. you cannot -- you have to put yourself in situations where it's all or nothing. and i think there is -- i think he believed in what the truth does on the other side to the person internally, no matter what their race is. and right now in this divisive climate, people have taken sides. and somehow, they've kind of forgotten that, that on the other side, the truth still does the same thing inside that

so the first is that we do argue that the rise of isis was a tragedy. we think that had u.s. policy makers taken different policy choices at various junctures, isis probably would not have emerged as the full blown threat that it ultimately became. we can debate amongst ourselves which of these was most promising one. we think 2003 and 2011 were the critical ones. there were opportunities to shift the trajectory of events. the second point is that we have to acknowledge that all the counterfactuals here are messier than they first appear and in some cases that's because changing the u.s. decision changes the subsequent course of history, so profoundly that it's hard to know how , better off you actually are. this is certainly the case had the united states not invaded iraq, for instance. and in some cases because the counterfactual that we posit have risks as well leaving a , stabilize force in 2011 for instance. either way the point is that it's a mistake to think that there was a silver bullet. there were better and worse policy decisions but there wasn't something that was

in these, i would argue, powerful ways. this is a shot of two black zoot suiters in detroit, shot of them walking down the sidewalk. if anyone has a scene the -- has "malcom x" and spike y,e playing his sidekick short decked out in zoot suits, walking down the street literally like this -- hunched over, arms out, occupying public space. their feathers, tails, ballooned out pants, a spectacle to be seen. to move off the sidewalk to let them pass. their bodies and space were mobilized to challenge this dehumanization that many of them faced up to as a part of everyday life in wartime american society. my point here is what they were in fact doing is making an argument is that there is a young manwaytheir bodies to or woman in american society during world war ii, that they were challenging status quo notion of wartime race, gender, and u.s. identity. i want you to think about the different pieces of what i just said. the first is gender. let's imagine zoot suiters juxtaposed to another popular icon of the wartime american wom

some interpreters have argued our constitution is godless. strictly speaking, they are right, in that it contains no mention of god. but copies of the declaration of a crater,tly that made us equal and endowed us with unalienable rights. a mixture of sacred and secular. but isn't this a mixture of oil and water? aren't religion and republicanism at odds? so it may seem to some of us today. not so to the founding generation. for them, biblical religion and democratic self-government fit together, hand in glove. text, here is how they read it -- when the israelites requested the king, god gave them on. but only as a form of punishment. for what is a king but a false god, and idle? -- idol? self forming governments are for a self-righteous people. they did not come up with this reading themselves. they barred it from medieval judaism. how widespread was this view, you ask? it extended beyond the ranks of orthodox christian. consider benjamin franklin. this is his proposal for the national seal of the u.s. that would be the israelites crossing th

and we have argued about this, but not in this piece. my view is that it's clearly not a silver bullet. obviously, it's not, but any concert with other activities, it's -- it can have a strategic effect. but by itself, it doesn't have a strategic effect. and if you overrely on that and ignore the other lines of action, then you don't have an effective overall strategy. so this piece was more of looking at all the rest of the stuff, setting aside the decapitation. you know, that's the kind of -- unfair to your question, but some earlier ones is what gave the counterfactual history a bad name. what if hitler had been strangled in the cradle? then what would have happened? we're trying to avoid those kinds of echoes or comparisons. >> the only thing i would add is that i don't think it's a stretch to suggest that u.s. intervention against isis in 2014 could have had significant earlier in 2014, late 2013, early 2014, could have had significant military effects. but given how hard we have been trying to find this guy and kill him since mid-2

and i would argue that world war ii is the same. the sailor or the soldier becomes the heroic figure juxtaposed to the zoot suiter, the male or the female zoot suiter. you have the female zoot suiter projecting these masculine characteristics, wearing men's clothes, roaming the streets in a way girls weren't supposed to be doing, or the men paying too much attention to their hair, too pretty, acting too feminine. so you have feminine masculinity and masculine femininity. the zoot suiters were challenging what a young man or woman could be when it came to their gendered identity. i would argue they were also challenging what it can mean when it came to their racial identity. a big part of the zoot suit was its multiracial quality. then when it came to the music and dancing, zoot suiters weren't just listening and dancing to anything. they were bag into the jazz scene. jazz artists would come to l.a. or houston or other places and youth would go, not just black youth but mexican-american youth and l.a., central avenue, where the jazz

you argue that mr. zarda didn't raise his current claim to eeoc. >> i quote, i am not, not being underlined, making this charge on the grounds that i was discriminated on the grounds of my sexual orientation. that's special appendix 3, paragraph 2. that's his sworn affidavit to the eeoc. >> the eeoc took a contrary position. a week after he files a reconsideration for reconsideration before the district court to reconsider the summary judgment on exactly that basis. how could he have done anything else to tee up that issue? >> she came out and said i am making this claim because i was discriminated against because my sexual orientation. if they want to assert the claim and if they want to change the law, they have to plead facts that support that. >> how about the eeoc charge? he says, and i quote, in addition to being discriminated against because of sexual orientation, also fired against discriminated against because of gender, right? >> right. >> sorry. ok. >> isn't that precisely -- and then he goes

the way the constitution has always been made is by people arguing about the constitution.what happened was the nra, national rifle association on this issue in 1977, previously started after the civil war, concerned -- training and marksmanship, spoke for hunters for sportsmen. in 1977, the revolt at cincinnati at the annual meeting among members. much more ideological, installed as leadership and refashioned itself, the constitution perceived to change the way the supreme court found the second amendment. a lot of scholarship, some of it is not so good. it worked to change positions of the government, changed its position in the second amendment. as i said, by the time over the past decade it was time to go to court, the apple, fell like an apple from the tree. it was not that surprising or controversial. a lot of liberal scholars, what can you expect. they were upset because this was the same living constitutionalism they felt they had been fighting, the highest of insults. and a classic campaign to change what was seen as something different. >> two distinguished judges

resemble what's being argued. donald sardis was at the question before, a pure question of law. i understand that but if you decide this. question of law without taking into account the fax, then you are doing the law a disservice and we're exceeding the judicial mandate. >> let me ask you along those lines, you argue that mr. zarda didn't raise his current claim to the eeoc. >> i quote, i am not, not being underlined, making this charge on the grounds that i was discriminated on the grounds of my sexual orientation. that's special appendix three, paragraph two. that's his sworn affidavit to the eeoc. >> why was he going get at the time? baldwin wasn't issued and eeoc had taken the controversy position. he filed a motion for reconsideration before the district court to reconsider the summary judgment on exactly that basis. how could he have done anything else to tee up the issue? >> the same way did it in ipo. she came at a set because i discriminate against because of sexual orientation. if they want to instruct

and the medical examiner wasn't arguing with him. but detectives have a kind of sixth sense about cases. it was telling james something sinister had just happened. >> you didn't think this was a horrible accident? >> no. >> there wasn't any smoking gun really. just something dark he thought he could read between the lines in the police notes he reviewed the day after jody's death. >> he did not react like somebody who just lost his wife should have reacted. >> and so the detective moved his investigation from the physical evidence to the less tangible clues. he quickly learned from jody's friends that this was a couple not in love but in crisis. the subject wasn't wine and roses on those cliffs, it was divorce. >> she was going to go through with it, yes. absolutely. >> jody's longtime friend maryann told detectives that jody had been determined to take her 10-year-old son jonathan and leave her husband. she was convinced steven had been cheating on her. >> she couldn't prove anything, but women called the house. and sometimes they w

whether or not this was the right thing to do many argue it was his plan all along. i do not see the evidence of that myself. the primary thing that i would established a surprise. virtually all of his chaininates not down the but mead and slocum and governor warren who helped plan the campaign. they said if this was the plan all along it was one he had kept to himself. -- combined with the posting boasting of what he would do to robert e. lee. not defeat him but bag him. the decision to pull back into the position are run chancellorsville, regardless of its merit reflected a you can't surprise her people like that, and expect them to embrace what you are doing when it seems to them exactly opposite of everything you have said that you were going to do. warren would write of this moment, we went forward filled with high hope and courage and a thought a great victory was to be hours. ours.be we hesitated, we wavered, retired. that force which had just turned us back seemed to me just made for us to crush. i know we could have done it. how few are the minds that compre

and that is why i argue what we are facing in this country is what amounts to an epidemic of malpractice even if it isn't acknowledg acknowledged. the reality is the attorneys don't take the case unless someone dies. >> and you are watching booktv on c-span2. joining us is author michael sherman who is with skeptic magazine. his newest book is called skeptic? viewing the world with a rational eye. he has a new ones called heavens on earth. the scientific search for the afterlife, imortality and utopia. you write those of us who practice skepticism find us tip toe around the pc police. who are the pc police? >> it has gotten worse actually. as we saw on the campus protest going on and disruptions of speakers and microaggression and deplatforming of speakers in the last two years even has gone crazy. the argument on the left and this is the regressive left, far left progressives but really regressive when it comes to the values we cherish that is enl t enlightenment, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religious worship and all those values are forms of oppression, bigo

some argue that existing security is tight and no high rises towering ahead but others arguing that moreare built. >> more these things are happening, more problems there are going to be, even at personal level. >> david louie, abc7 news. >>> are wondering how the shooter got arsenal into the hotel room. house minority leader nancy pelosi is calling on speaker ryan for immediate subcommittee on gun violence. live in walnut creek with more. >> reporter: appears many of the guns that las vegas shooter used were purchased legally in nevada. one that appears to have done the most damage is already banned, at least here in california. >> get down. >> reporter: cell phone videos reveal rapid fire carnage. hundreds or thousands of rounds for at least five minutes. owner of gun shop says you don't need to be expert to know what the sound is, if not model of the kbun. >> it was full automatic. >> reporter: police say had 18 to 20 guns in hotel room, hand gns, sniper rifle and at least one military grade machine gun on a tripod. calling for greater gun control laws. >> we can do a lot to protect p

but no one can argue, no support of president trump can argue against idea that he is constantly fighting. seeking fights where they are unnecessary. i would notice that while he was very tough and loud on twitter, when he confronted it, he looked like he wanted to get away from there. >> he is a forgiving man. you may remember the president of china was a currency manipulating aggressive trade demon and then he went to mar-a-lago, they had cake is that he is a good friend after that. so the president is a malleable. >> well, you know, i think it is a great point george makes, leah. i wonder what you think. forgiving is one way to put it. he is forgiving or faking. fits a fake fight. >> i think he is for giving in the face of people not questioning him. so in the conversations, a lot of his effusive praise went to officials, and in his own words who didn't question him. and who kind of were with him. and were all about whatever his agenda was in this particular moment. but i think at the end of the day, one, the mayor since donald trump's visit has had a couple of comments. not so great c

unions argues we can move toward a world of zero unemployment, zero carbon emissions >> you argue that the capitalist engine is broken and we need a new radical economic system. what is the single most important element of this new system? >> first of all, it comes from the broken system. the broken system is sucking up all the wealth from all people, pushing it to the top. so fewer and fewer people at the top are getting more and more wealth. today, eight people in the ole world even more wealth than the bottom 50% of the entire world. that is ridiculous. the story is it is getting worse every day. >> but in this book, you want to blow that up and change everything. what is the basis of your new system? >> going to a world capitalist systems. i said the basic thing that is going wrong is the interpretation of the human being. who are we building the system about? this human being in the system is motivated, driven and purse is self-interestses or selfish ness. he people we have are more selfless and selfish people. >> you said we should be treated like that. what drives your belief th

only place it was argued. >> so the plaintiffs argue that you waived the waiver by not raising it any time before today. >> and jurisdiction is not waived. and that's part of our argument. if he has no -- if the plaintiff has no right to be before this court because there is no jurisdiction, or he is asking this court to make a decision that's going to send this case back to judge bianco to decide a sexual orientation case that wasn't plead under the eeoc, then he is sending this court on a fool's errand. >> the district court granted summary judgment relying on simonton, right? >> in part. >> well, in part. but that issue is before us now. because the district court made a ruling based on simonton. >> and the district court also made a ruling that all of the allegations, and now i'm taking from the zidecision of the firs panel, all of the allegations regarding sex role stereotype weren't analyzed by judge bianco and denied, separate and independent. >> the question of whether discrimination based on sexual orientation violates title vii was ruled on by the district court, correct? >>

argue in the book -- that as far more reasonable belief than any alternative. the reason for that is people may say that america's benefited from a series of happy accidents. but a pattern of happy accidents is still a pattern. it's evidence not of random evolution but of design, pattern, purpose, and i think that's the sense that americans should regain. >> host: from your book, you write: looking for indications of fate or providence in the broad sweep of history, there's scant connection to a search for the divine countenance in misshapen -- >> guest: yes. in other words, one of the things that people say is they will take a look at the stories of -- there was recently one where there was a stain in a car window and it looked a little bit like the virgin mary and people were coming to look at it. okay, fine, that's fine, but that is actually trying to look at some little thing as an indication of something big. what i do in the american miracle, what i do in my book, is to look at big things that are evidence of an even bigger thing. the point is not that am

i am not arguing with anyone. i am saying they have done a great job in the field may have looked at, but no one has looked at it like this before. student: i really enjoyed the talk. i'm wondering if you can link more clearly for me -- i'm a political scientist. a lot of this is fuzzy for me. the concept of honor to civic virtue. gordon would points out no other word than liberty is used more. there is a crisis of virtue in the immediate post-constitutional era. patrick henry describes the american policy as daters lasik kerry washington says men of virtue are but a drop in the ocean. our theory of politics requires virtue. somebody has to democratize virtue and honor just as a political process. dressed with national survival. is that speaking to franklin at all? professor smith: great point. gordon wood was on my original dissertation committee. [laughter] there is a democratization of the concept. i think we start to see that through franklin. arguing against the hereditary aspects, the officer class. you are

some will argue that what the government of iran wants is a clear crescent.n we'ree supporting turkey? is that the reason we support the government? people create the paper targets they can find. these are strong assumptions. why did we help? was turkey a government? why do we oppose the takeover of qatar? >> no one doubts that iran is opposed. that's not even a question. but on the question of afghanistan you have the same interest as the united states, you support the government in power. >> i certainly hope so. >> this conversation is looking into areas where there may be an opportunity for the united states and iran and other countries as well to troubled region areas. it has regional inventions and regional influence. and it is part of the community. >> we want to live in a secure region. >> the united states respects that. neglect and that is the reason why the united onees has gotten itself after another in our region. allre you prepared to say issues may be raised by the united states or other countries can be on the table? sat around the same table a

soldiers could not be removed from missouri, hallock argued, without losing the state. throughout january and making 62, the union high command made little progress in moving the war militarily while politicians written estimate politically. -- throughout january of 18 62. ulysses s. grant convinced him to send reconnaissance -- andrew foot took fort henry and opened the war in the west. emboldened by his success, grant informed how it that he would next take fort donaldson nearby. nashvillen focused on and refused. buhl by to persuade offering him command of the cumberland column, but he forfeited the opportunity ben hallock never forgot it. it afforded him the opportunity to proclaim himself the genius of grant's success. -- following day, he said give me command in the west. i ask this in return for fort henry and fort donaldson. you can imagine the rancor between buhl be and halleck. get thewould ultimately command of the west and grants operations-- grant's had been a successful and buhl became part of the success and adventure. in the meantime, however, you'll had

thedy is arguing about direct endangered north korea. we are arguing about whether or not the temperament of the president and strategy are adequate. tofear is that in contrast president obama, and i think president obama was not great on a lot of foreign policy friends, but what he understood on iran is there's no path forward unless you brought the entire world together to cripple iran economically and get china and russia on our side, which we did read we are not taking that approach with north -- which we did. we are not taking that approach with north korea. maybe china is or is not helping. china and russia are sitting there, like france, england and germany, wondering if they can depend on and trust donald trump in arrangement in dealing with north korea and calculating their interests, which are different than ours. i have no argument about the feared threat of north korea. i have arguments about with the proper strategic approaches to get to a win to get north korea to a different place and we are not doing this, with the except

some folks have argued that one of the things ge might do is break up. so there could be a way you could see sort of a self-dividend cut. let's say, for example, ge shaves off parts of the business that aren't doing well. and that new business, perhaps they do tram, or dividend there, before the bulk of the company. we can get into some of the pieces that are doing pretty well. we t keep the dividend as is. >> in your view, is the company more valuable whole? or more valuable broken up? >> we would break it up. so basically, there are three really nice pieces at ge. a health care business, aerospace, and power. think of utilities. that's about three-fourths of the business. that's doing pretty well. if you look at the stock this year, it's off more than 25%. you could argue that the street is already basally giving up on the other piece of business that's struggling. we would look at the company, take a hard look at the financials and say, okay, you've got three nice businesses here, let's them, grow them nicely. the rest of the business, perhaps let som

i'm arguing many this book that you have to really change the model. the model now is -- the teacher is the worker. turning out kids, the kids are the product. i think that's absolutely wrong. the kids are the workers. the product is knowledge. teachers become management did you know you were management? but -- so that the work has to be genuine and work has to be real and i have a lot of examples of different kinds of work that kids can do where they are creating mog. and they're all arranged us and just one quick example i looked out the window of our apartment in new york, one day -- and i noticed it was a trash can on each corner. well i was filming up in south bronx got out of the subway walking to the school it was one trash can, four corners one trash can. but you know -- maybe these aren't trash cans but cleanliness opportunities. so if you call them cleanliness opportunities then you say to your 7th graders let's go map the neighborhood. let's go to your neighborhood with smart phone with a couple of your friends and take pictures of the corne

now on and we argue when it's the law. to me you aren't getting into. those good and i think. you don't wish to own this the bus. into the. system and all michigan goes of this who didn't. know when the would be was a single got a dummy variables when you said i wonder morgan going with me i was going to say what are the i lament the little bro my. disability. no fog. was ok. i know she says most of. these are. going to start. falling do not come. easy but i know i'm not going to bear. down. everything and to visit janko facing the. guys on. the main. sure. and inspiration. stories of people who are keeping the spirit of freedom alive. by courageously defending their rights to do. this that's a. good thing to get. out. at this time across the paddy fields appears the stream of people they dinner with heavy bags and carrying small children they say they're escaping from the smoke in the distance the follow the path to the border and come across a group of. bare feet caked in mud they tell us they arrived in bangladesh the day before need to return to find the rest of their fami

and the result he would argue is that the result he would argue is that the result he would argue isult is better for people in the long—term and more in their own interest. you heard andrew talk about people being nudged into doing things. he is the professor explaining this in 2012.|j things. he is the professor explaining this in 2012. i think the basic idea of the so—called nudge unit is to take just all we know about behavioural science, how people think, how they behave, and make use of that to try to figure out how to implement government policies as effectively as possible. now a report claiming that google has discovered russian operatives spent thousands on adverts in america. our correspondent is live in new york. michelle, is the information that google took money specifically for ads on the election. google has been looking into what has become a hot issue in the united states and that is how much was social media used in the us election by russian operatives to sow chaos. google has said there is evidence that perhaps entities backed by russia use or bought up ads aroun

we can argue about what the tax reform will look like, but we cannot argue about the benefit for american families of tax reform. clinton'sresident treasury secretary argued that the tax on corporate profit crease a burden without commensurate revenues for the government. changing it is as close to a free lunch for the american taxpayer as reformers will ever get. it looksgue about what like, but we cannot argue about what it is intended to do, and what leading experts believe it will do. chuck schumer and rob portman cosponsored a senate bill to reduce the top corporate tax rate, which is the highest of the 35 countries today. -- taxernational taxes system creates incentives to send jobs and stash profits overseas rather than creating jobs and economic growth here in the united states. we can fix that together, and we will fix that together. bill clinton in 2016 said he regretted raising the corporate tax rate to its current level for exactly those reasons. who is advantaged by trying to persuade the american people that something nefarious is going on here? who is advantaged by that? i

and a conservative use to argue that character matters. those who mock the disabled or with the pow or paying a multimillion-dollar fine to students who wanted it education. >> and we are supposed to think to conservative values. >> host: that is interesting that don't know. >> nobody says this is a return to conservative values if it is an effort to put out that dumpster fire. but as i mentioned there was a panel of women about our age and all of them said no. they were not voting for a husband or were boyfriend it was about getting things in order. that is why resonated the role of the president the nature of this person as an individual and what was required. clearly they determined it would nimby jeb bush or marco rubio workers christie. and dad implication is the trend of the republican party is xenophobia and racism and misogyny. for the average voter who was their job back and money back get their parts kit -- pocket is that fair to those individuals? and that could be a viewpoint. >> with what he represents with a xenophobia and mi

for nearly six years, the department of justice had argued that the texas law was unconstitutional. it intended to discriminate against minority voters. based on evidence, the voter id laws "have a disproportionate effect on minorities." despite this, just two weeks after you were confirmed, the department dropped its opposition to the texas law. the department also changed its position on another key voting rights case. this one involved ohio's purge of voters. under ohio's procedure, voters who had not cast a ballot in six years and failed to return a postcard were removed from state voting rolls. this process reportedly resulted in the removal of 40,000 voters in one county alone, cuyahoga county, which covers cleveland and its surrounding suburbs. civil rights organizations challenged the process, arguing that the national voter registration act forbids the state from removing individuals for failing to vote. in july 2016, the justice department told the court it opposed ohio's purge, and in september 2016, the sixth circuit agreed that ohio's process for removing voters from it

in that article we argued that the death penalty was immoral like the catholic church teaches and in common with quakers episcopalians presbyterians methodists and the 38 member community and the national pounces -- councils of churches churches. lamont is a catholic judge who held that view in rare cases happen recuse herself under the federal statute that asked a federal judge to step aside when she had conch and just scruples that prevent her from deciding a case in conformity with the facts and the law. president garvey once read that perhaps the lines of justice mounted the campaign to discredit professor barrett didn't get that far in reading the article. the web site says this. stunningly barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. iner fact this group claimed barrett has said that judges should be free to put their personal views ahead of the judicial oath to faithfully follow the law. the president noted however barrett said no such thing. she said precisely the opposite. they let peo

final point is i'm not arguing against free speech.i am saying we have all sorts of other things we recognize, we take completely unregulated approach to them they wind up with and what we don't intend, the second amendment is a great example. the fifth amendment, the property rights, due process clause is wonderful until people used it as a basis for preventing the emancipation of slaves. you can use democratic principles in undemocratic ways, that is the basic point i am making, we have to be cognizant of that. it is not a matter of curtailing things, how do you strike with it that way you not absolutes. we are trying to find a balance between competing ideals. >> can you trust the person or people running these institutions to strike that balance q turning to you guys does anyone want to ask a question? raise your hand and someone with a microphone will find you. let's go for the person you are nearest to. >> i just graduated from the university of virginia and i'm from charlottesville, have a brother and sister there now and i have

labour is arguing ha rd last election.aking the housing crisis work, and to back labour's plans. then we really could make a start on fixing this problem. do think that scheme such as help to buy the linton smack have maybe such an —— have made the situation worse, ? have maybe such an —— have made the situation worse,? with homeownership in freefall, one of the most difficult problems for young people is getting access to that finance. in my view, help to buy does have a role, but i would like to see the government backing the labour plan, a good dedryck boyata big house—building programme, we have made plans to build 100,000 genuinely affordable homes to buy, before next parliament. thank you very much. more now on that breaking news. watch the police are telling people to avoid bermuda park in nuneaton. thank you forjoining us, carl. can you tell us what happened to you? thank you forjoining us, carl. can you tell us what happened to you ?l was just you tell us what happened to you ?l wasjust on you tell us what happene

and conservatives who bought that long ago used to argue that character matter and the president was a role model somehow found a way to rationalize behavior of somebody that insults when men an my nams the disabled and the pows and paid a multimillion dollar fine defrauding students who just wanted to get an education who even now in the oval office uses the power to insult and call for people to be fired for engaging in free speech and yet we are supposed to think somehow this is a return to the conservative values. >> host: that's interesting though because i don't know if it was that argument. no one is saying that this is a returned to the conservative values but it was an effort to put out the fire that was happening economically and was and still is happening around the world. and as i've mentioned, there was a panel of two african-american women and a white woman about our age asking them about this common sense after charleston and if it bothered them and all of them said no. they were not voting for a husband or boyfriend. that it was about getting things in order and that

charlie: you argue they are there for terrorist purposes.magine people don't necessarily assume they should accepted at face value. we need to do is look at the past. last year, saudi arabia spent $67 billion on weapons. united arab emirates, which is, what? $500,000 -- 8 million population, spent 14 -- $14 billionin iran spent $6 these people, the iranian people morwar.ect to -- remember saddam hussein. chemical weapons, nobody cared. i remember going to the president of the security council 25 years ago. chemical weapons against iran. these are not authorized. our people have been bombed i missiles. -- bombed by missiles. [indiscernible] from 1985 to 1988, there are six reports by secretary-general of the united nations saying that chemical weapons were used against iran by iraq, and there was not a single resolution condemning iraq. ask any iranian, no iranian beliefs chemical weapons on the red line for any western country because you tolerated their use? charlie: when the government you supported in syria was using chemical weapons, wer

if you think he russia scandal is, indeed, a scandal, and you do and you've argued it here, then hows this not a scandal at much greater magnitude. this is a huge deal that threatens our national security, but nobody seems to care because it's obama and clinton. >> if this is a scandal, this is a scandal for the trump administration, it means during the trump administration this uranium is leaving the country without having proper licenses. >> tucker: they ought to shut this down right now. i couldn't agree with you more. i am arguing that anybody who is allowing this is in the wrong and is a threat to us, but the genesis of this -- and it is ongoing to this day -- is this deal. now, the clinton who was a joke through their donations over a hundred million dollars in this uranium country. how is is not quid pro quo? it is a deal you yourselves it was a bad deal, they approved it, the clintons took over $100 million during that period back. why is that not an actual scandal? >> let's break that down. the clintons did not take $100 million. $100 million went in shareable donations to t

jefferson and the republicans argued through article three of the treaty. i don't need to read this to you. the most important part of this is the last clause. they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion, which they professed. jefferson's idea of compact inequality. well, heavy-handed compact inequality. federalist and even some republicans would argue they could not incorporate louisiana. because there were too many foreigners there. and how could you ring them to the american experiment? most federalists and many republicans thought they cannot he brought in. one senator, a new hampshire senator suggested our republican government derives its authority and momentum from the frequent meetings of the mass of the people of towns and county assembly. the acquisition of louisiana would hasten the dissolution of that kind of participatory democracy. the problem is the united states had a model by which we incorporated territories into states. it was formed under the articles of confederation. ordinance cr

adams argued before the supreme court to give employers control over your access to birth control.ms also supports giving employers the power to block access to affordable contraception for ses abortion even in cases of rape, or incest. john adams: wrong for women's health. wrong for virginia. >>> are the kids going trick or treating tonight? if you're the parents going to raid their stash after they get home, better know the limit. eat enough of these, and they can turn into killer candy. yes, a certain amount of these can actually kill you. let's do some verifying. it's all about the sugar. we know sugar is toxic if you eat too much of it. scientists have calculated the toxic tipping point for sugar, and have determined how much sugar is in an average fun sized candy bar. factor in yo the math. take your weight, multiply it by 13.5. divide that number by 9.3. that's your killer candy count. the number of fun sized candy bars that would make this halloween your last. for someone who weighs 180 pounds, it's about 262 of these little guys. if you have something you want verified, fi

recent gillespie ads argue.. northam's support for sanctuary cities would help the growth of the m-s-13 gang. but during his speech, gillespie focused his remarks on job creation and economic growth. with just over a week to go until election day... a new poll gives northam his largest lead to date in race. northam leads republican ed gillespie by 17-points in the quinnipiac university survey of likely voters. new this morning. white house chief of staff john kelly trending on social media overnight after he steps into the center of a hot button issue. during an interview last night on "fox news" kelly came out against removing confederate-era monuments, and called confederate general robert e. lee "a great man". and while talking about the civil war, kelly never mentioned slavery but said "lack of an ability to compromise led to the civil war. and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand." congressman ted lieu slammed the comments online overnight-

i'm not arguing that. i'm not saying they're matters of money. i'm not saying that the wealthy stay wealthy. what i'm saying is that there are other issues at play. the idea that there's something else. now, how i look at this, i'm trying to -- i'm basically saying that there's a change, an ethical change, an ideological change before the revolution actually breaks out. before there's a shot at concord, they're starting to speak in much the same way. i point to the first continental congress and the first continental congress is the first time many of these founding generations actually meet in person. but within a few, you know, a short amount of time, they're pledging their sacred honor. that to me is suggestive of a shared belief system. now, this doesn't mean that there aren't economics. there aren't other factors. i'm just suggesting that this ethical component has not been looked at. i think it would give a fuller picture of the revolution, so i'm not arguing with anyone. i'm saying that they have done a great job in the field they've looke

that was never argued, we argued it.you look at the dissent, they picked up the argument, i think it is something that hopefully in the future, the doj will argue. >> shannon: there is a class action lawsuit that the aclu -- this broke off, my understanding from that -- but they do have a broader, wider case, they want to have it establish an court that any woman who is here illegally and is a minor -- you know, you could argue a child -- should be able to have access to an abortion. again, they talk about that being paid for separately by someone else, not by taxpayer dollars. what are your concerns about that case? >> first of all, it is not the law now. second of all, we know that -- third, once you open us up, what constitutional rights to the illegals have in other facts and circumstances? it would be a pretty broad change in our constitution foundation and what our founders thought of when they put this together. >> shannon: one of the lower court judges and hearing this case put it this way. the choice this young

i'm arguing about the prose process. it's wrong and all the proxy services are doing is saying, well, get another outside voice in there and see if you can mix it up a little bit what have you got to lose? >> they do -- the proxy service says the company is not keeping pace with smaller competitors, that it has an inefficient corporate structure and an insular culture and it performance can be significantly improved and -- >> and i say -- well, guess what they earn 40% in equity. why don't you give me a list of major corporations that earn 40% over equity. the answer is you're not going to find any, okay? i know financial analysis. very few companies with their record again, there's no company in america that can't do a better job than they are doing. is there a possibility for them to do things in an improved fashion, yes, my questions is the company it s ahead of bill ackman carlos rodriguez is a very good ceo. the management team there is very committed again, how do you go about doing and affecting change do you do i

he prepared a lengthy and carefully argued bill of indictment, 15 pages long. outlined all of the general's shortcomings. that is why it had to be 15 pages long. [laughter] he concluded with this. "my opinion of general johnstons unfitness of command has ripen slowly and against my inclination into a conviction so subtle that it would be impossible for me, again, to feel confidence in him as a commander of the army in the field." intended use of it that congress is responsible legislation, but did not do it. we convinced him that if nothing else, johnstons appointment would boost sagging morale in the army and was a measure of in lee and his commitment to the cause that he was willing to violate every personal instinct, swallow hard, and make the appointment. the news brought no pleasure to joe johnson. when he got lee's order to concentrate your forces and , he repliedherman "these troops form an army too weak to cope with sherman." of course, davis had heard back before -- that before. the day after he wrote that response, johnston, who was living in south ca

i would argue that in his way, john quincy adams had some jeffersonian qualities. george kennan is a example of someone whose instincts were deeply jeffersonian and contributed a great deal to the formation of american national strategy. these schools, while having differences between them, tend to all be -- have some things in common. they are represented in the elite. they are ideologies that have a lot of appeal to the upper-middle-class and well educated professional people. it is -- even if they do not always agree, it is easy for them to talk with one another because they often operate in the same cultural and political context. the fourth school in american foreign-policy, which i named for andrew jackson, the jacksonian school is a bit different. they are skeptical about hamiltonian and wilsonian building measures. they do not think big business is here to help them or that it can be trusted. they resolutely oppose the idea that american soldiers should be used as pawns or as instruments for promoting democracy in other countries. why should an american mot

these are like this is the stuff we're argue being? you will wear something -- >> i don't think that's what you are arguing about, i think a result that you have to talk about it. so what i am ' saying, if you have issue, right? tell me what the issue is. >> don't be passive. >>don't be passive. i'm going to wear this or i'm not coming home tonight or i'm going to -- she doesn't like salmon, so i'm cool salmon. stop. who is doing this? how old are we? >> good point. i like that common sense. >> we have time to do other thing, arguing all the time, here is the thing, arguing all of this, me and my wife, we went to dinner en blanc, smooth, look at this, very smooth. i was so happy because the outfit i had right there, cost me like $9, that's another whole thing. but hey guys, you don't have time to argument we don't have time. i don't care. not about kids. just saying if you're in a relationship and all you are doing is arguing leave. watch "th "the q"," 12 noon. and we have tickets on, going to the q, we are going to the q. ugh. then ju

for the last several months we democrats have been united in arguing that not one penny of tax relief should go to the top 1%. that any tax reform plan should be fiscally responsible. so as not to put important programs like medicare at risk. under this plan, the wealthiest americans and wealthiest corporations make out like bandits while middle class americans are left holding the bag. when donald trump was talking about this plan over the last few days, he talked about focusing on the middle class and not helping the wealthy. the plan is a major disappointment because it so deviates from everything the president said. he's walking the walk -- sorry, he's talking the talk, but this plan shows he is not walking the walk. just look at the way this is plan is a boon for the wealthy. corporations have hired lawyers and lobbyists to exploit every single loophole to avoid paying their fair share in taxes. they get their rate cut from 35 percent all the way to 20%. now, will this result in hiring workers? their track record says no. for big corporations, corporation profits right now are wa