know i felt let me ask you this let me out is because he does. say ok lloyd let me have you say i don't know what are you doing that's just very minutes lloyd as an african-american do you how does it make you feel that glenn back the man that is leading this rally has said that barack obama the first black president america's history is a racist white people i believe he is the man leading this rally if he's going to be the new m.l. hey. at the service package he's the president because because he is black we cannot this agree with this me and that's just unsettling a lot of different values surely a conservative leader david brooks has even said that this is demagoguery this is cross the line this is rewriting history going back basically says a third all roosevelt and woodrow wilson who was a racist should be a communist what are we going with this i mean texas are trying to rewrite textbooks we are we going to one with this law and they are trying to write the next book in texas the wrong way they are trying to eliminate a whole lot of america

. >> tom, let me ask you something about the construction jobs. that just jumped out at me. i thought we spent oodles of money from the stimulus bill from the federal government that was supposed to do precisely what, you know, put people to work in the construction trades. did that happen at all and it was a blip and they're gone, or is it still going through the works? >> imagine how much worse it would be if we weren't doing doyle drive and the bay bridge, and how much worse if we weren't doing the caldecot. >> it made a difference? >> it made a little bit of a difference. but the fact of the matter is the majority of construction was commercial real estate and especially housing and when that went away, not only those 600,000 jobs went away but the mortgage jobs went away and the banking jobs and the title insurance jobs, and until housing gets s itself back on track, the outlook is not good. >> wasn't it the administration's position it's bad, but it's not as bad had we not done anything? >> i think that's absolutely true. on the other hand, i'll tell you this, i think w

they're one step ahead. >> let me ask you about your book. a collection of philosophical and practical aphorisms. one that caught my eye was this quote. the three most harmful addictions are heroin, carbohydrates and a monthly salary. what do you mean by that? >> i keep attacking employment at several levels mostly on ethical grounds in the fact that people who are addicted to salary, to that middle class lifestyle will do anything to fit their ethics to their job rather than pick jobs that fit their ethics. they are very ethically vulnerable. it makes them partake of collective scams, you see simply because the establishment, working for the fed is something unethical, but they do it because oh, i got a mortgage to pay. or they justify it that way. so this is why i'm -- i say here i trust people who make a living standing up or lying down more than those who make a living sitting down, the bureaucrats. >> what great sentiment. nassim, great to have you on the program. great sentiment and there are many more on the books. congratulations on th

let me ask you a request -- been a tricky response. let me ask you a question meant to be entirely neutral. the preference of opponents -- let me -- let us say you are probably here and argue to defend the proposition. >> i accept that assumption, sir. [laughter] >> you want us to get to the merits of the issue here? in other words, the you want us to sidestep baker? >> no, not at all. i believe baker is binding on this court. my opening legal point of -- point, would have been in fact this is not the first court to take up and deal with the very 14th amendment issues that the plaintiffs to bring here today. in fact, there have been eight appellate courts, state and federal, who have addressed these issues and so far as they relate to challenges to traditional marriage laws just like proposition 8. and all eight of those courts have upheld the traditional marriage laws and rejected the 14th amendment claims. and one of those cases, your hor, is baker v. nelson, the supreme court case that we submit remains a good law, remains binding on

. >> let me ask you about the health care law and what kind of impact you have seen to the business.urse we know it won't be implemented for a couple of years. what impacts have you seen, if anything? >> the problem is we really haven't seen the definition of the law. we've got 2,400 pages of law, but we don't have the statutes to go with it. it hasn't been interpreted in washington. it's very hard to know how it's going to impact us. my concern and we talked about previously that you begin to have the unintended consequences of delaying innovation, funding innovation by venture capitalists, et cetera. i talked with the venture capitalists concerned about the same thing. >> have you seen that? what kind of impact has it had on stifling innovation? >> we know that venture capital money is at an all-time low coming into health care. we don't see the early funding going on like we would five years ago. whether we can tribute that to the health care law or not, i don't know. >> this is a very important time for the united states. we're at a tipping point right now. with 50% of the busine

we have technology that worked impressively in the missile defense area. >> let me ask you about the eeling. mr. eagleburger, do you think we face a geopolitical threat from russia today? are they our enemy or potential enemy in the world? >> oh, i suppose they're a potential enemy. they are not now an enemy. i think that where they pose a problem is that things like maybe some handing over some nuclear secrets to syria or something like that. in that regard, yes, they are a problem. in terms of the way they used to be that the two super powers facing each other, no, that's no longer the case. >> doug? >> i agree with secretary eagleburger on that. >> let me ask you positively then. don't we need the russian alliance on issues like afghanistan, issues like iran, toughening the sanctions, helping us do the battle we have to fight in afghanistan as long as we're there? >> we don't have them on a lot of those things. >> we don't? >> it would be desirable to have russian cooperation. and i'm all in favor of trying to improve cooperation with russia. but the russians have been very unhelpf

let me ask you a request -- been a tricky response. let me ask you a question meant to be entirely neutral. the preference of opponents -- let me -- let us say you are probably here and argue to defend the proposition. >> i accept that assumption, sir. [laughter] >> do you want us to get to the merits of the issue here? in other words, the you want us to sidestep baker? >> no, not at all. i believe baker is binding on this court. my opening legal point of -- point, would have been in fact this is not the first court to take up and deal with the very 14th amendment issues that the plaintiffs to bring here today. in fact, there have been eight appellate courts, state and federal, who have addressed these issues and so fars they relate to challenges to traditional marriage laws just ke proposition 8. and all eight of those courts have upheld the traditional marriage laws and rejected the 14th amendment claims. and one of those cases, your honor, is baker v. nelson, the supreme court case that we submit remains a good law, remains binding o

. >> let me ask you about the funding bill to keep the government up and running. you've got to work on a short-term funding bill because the big spending bill failed. and it failed in part because of those $8 billion in earmarks. you had requested $4.8 million in earmarks. do you think it's time to overhaul the system that earmarks are a thing of the past? >> absolutely. and to bring that bill to the senate with just a few days left in the session is absolutely wrong. i am delighted that the republicans join together with a couple of fiscally conservative democrats to defeat this. >> okay, but if that's -- >> they're gone now. they're done. >> why did you request earmarks if you don't think they have a place in the spending bill? >> well, they don't have a place for anyone in the spending bill. none of them should be there. you should remove all of them. that is the way that business is done in washington. and i think there's a major mistake. and what we ought to do is look at each of those projects individually, see which ones are reasonable, which are not. there

let me ask you a request -- been a tricky response. let me ask you a question meant to be entirely neutral. the preference of opponents -- let me -- let us say you are probably here and argue to defend the proposition. >> i accept that assumption, sir. [laughter] >> do you want us to get to the merits of the issue here? in other words, the you want us to sidestep baker? >> no, not at all. i believe baker is binding on this court. my opening legal point of -- point, would have been in fact this is not the first court to take up and deal with the very 14th amendment issues that the plaintiffs to bring here today. in fact, there have been eight appellate courts, state and federal, who have addressed these issues and so far as they relate to challenges to traditional marriage laws just like proposition 8. and all eight of those courts have upheld the traditional marriage laws and rejected the 14th amendment claims. and one of those cases, your honor, is baker v. nelson, the supreme court case that we submit remains a good law, remains bindi

but i just ask you this, this is san francisco, let me ask you this -- how many of you have smoked pot? [laughter] i ask this of my students every semester. how many of you have sexual intercourse before age 17? in my state, you are convicted felons. right? so i tell my students, i tell them that i'm going to take my university's 15,000, and going to take my students, and we're going to march down to the police station, and they are all going to confess to having sexual intercourse before age 18. my point is there is no escape anymore. it is not just a criminal records. i really feel sorry for our children and grandchildren. we are telling -- felonizing recreational drugs, felonziinizg recreational sex. i go into prisons, and in interviewing lesbian women who are 19 and 20 years old who get 20 years for having sex with a 17 year-old. she's 19, she 17, she got 20 years. that is what is coming to. in this country now with mandatory minimums, with these damned sex loss -- sex is illegal, guys. next, they are going to start arresting people for having sex out of marriage. sex offender laws

general, let me ask you -- thank you for being here. you have heard what the service chiefs have said in the testimony on capitol hill the last couple of days. what do you make of where they stand? and their call that it shouldn't happen at a time of war? >> well, actually, they didn't all say it shouldn't happen at a time of war. the basic stand, what i got out of the testimony is, if you're going to make the decision, make the decision, get it over with. take us out of the middle of the game. and then, give us six months or so to do the training and education to get ready so the leadership can handle this. on a scale of one to ten, the report said this was about a two, in terms of degree of difficulty and degree of disruption. yes, it does add complexity. but not nearly as much complexity as the continuing uncertainty. the president said it's going to be done. i think one way or another, what the chiefs were telling you, while they were trying to be loyal to all the people that serve under them, what they were telling you was, let's m

let me ask you this. you are appointed common and and i saw when you made your case -- you are appointed, and i saw when you made your case, they basically accuse you of mismanagement common and and they pointed the finger at year- end said, you have a $300,000 deficit. -- at you and said, you have a $300,000 deficit. i am curious to know, because you are appointed, what pressures did you feel to stand up for your office? the consequences to your career? >> you have to have the mindset that your ethical obligations to your clients come first. if that means your neck is on the line, so be it. if you have not got the guts for that, you should not be taking a job as a public defender. [applause] i went through that whole circus. what it comes down to is, there are two competing factors involved. you are a department head. you are supposed to watch out for the budget, etc., but the budget comes second to the rights of the accused, the people you represent. people ask whether i was conflicted as to where my loy

but i just ask you this, this is san francisco, let me ask you this -- how many of you have smoked po

first, let me ask you something. you want to go to the mall this weekend?ou really want to go there? then don't. pick up a fabulous american patriot mat on bill o'reilly do the. these are great items we'll send them to you. you don't have to get mugged in the mall. become a premium member and get my book free. you get to keep the book, but nobody knows that. is that a tremendous deal or what? give the gift, but you get the book! finally the gatest $20 gift ever. the i get is donated to charities which helps our military. now to the mail: >> bill: there's no evidence of that robert. if i see evidence that sharia law gets a foot hold anywhere, i'll make a major deal out of it. >> bill: i didn't say they+ ug weren't infiltrating, joe. i said they will not win many hearts and minds here and they won't. >> bill: it is hard for me to sign those kindles. >> i'm always honest and i sign them all. look at my fingers. they point outward. i have the scars to prove it. finally, pinheads and patriots tv edition. 'tis the season to be jolly. sometimes you can go overboar

let me ask you this question. it seems to me that we as democrats have put ourselves in an impossible situation. we've delayed all of these incredibly important decisions and tax cuts for the middle class, don't ask, don't tell, the dream act, the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, we delay them until the november vote. why did we push these things through when we had the majority? >> kenny rogers says, you need to know when to hold them and when to fold them. we folded them early. so we're having to do all of this now. he make as very good point. legislative strategy is, you know, just get the election over and deal with it. >> turned out horrendously. >> james, i'm going to answer my own question now. you had colorful things to say about the president recently, describing his anatomy in less than -- are you vindicated? they made me ask that, i just want you to know. >> that's all right. they have a way of throwing your own words back in your face. >> well, but to the point. >> right. >> do you feel like he caved? if so, what is

it is hard for me to believe that a lawyer with your ability and whatever else you have -- [laughter] nevertheless, it is hard for me to believe that. let me askrriage system we have in california is an integrated system. as you say, the state is supposed to give the court order spirit anrs. they all act in concert to get people married. it takes a lot of people to do this. they are all acting together. doesn't the injunction brunn to all of those that are acting in concert to perform, give this marriage done between two people? those people covered by the injunction? >> the injunction itself did not go as broad as that might have under rule 65. the injunction at self-help is directed to the defendants and their official capacities and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants. and that is the limitation of the injunction that was actually entered. and now, one of the defendants that we have not mentioned is the registrar. that is the person responsible for the form and content of the marriage license. the registrar, who is the defendant here, will enter the injunction have to change the form and content of a marriage license.

. >> let me ask you a direct question. if you are -- if you can establish that someone died as a direct result of assange's work, is that not equivalent to yelling fire in a theater? >> no, it's not. i mean, the chain of causation is very hard to pin down here. certainly, you know, look, i believe the government overclassifies a lot. but we cannot have the julian assanges of the world as the arbiter of what should be public and what shouldn't. it's just not right. you know, the idea that this guy is a whistle blower, what did he disclose here? >> you object to the publication of pentagon papers? >> you know what, i think there's a huge moral difference. the moral difference is that was a situation where you had daniel ellsworth on his own -- >> "the new york times." >> "the new york times" didn't tell him to take the documents. once they took the documents, they gave it to "the new york times." >> they published it. >> that's different. it's very different from assange encouraging working with people -- >> "the new york tim

if you have spoken, let me ask you to step outside to we can allow them to come in, please. thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? >> right now there is an international meeting concerning global warming. we hear you talking about providing more parking, more parking, more parking. we have yet to implement this policy. this commission has not made any mention of public transit. sadly, not even the residents have mentioned transit. they recommend that we drive around until we find parking. what does that do to our air? rich or poor, we are all going to go down together. here and there and in the park, this will be wreck-reation. i wish you would consider those things. it is devastating considering what we are headed for. thank you. >> yvonne. hashim is here also. if you could come forward, please. you have two minutes. >> have done have a prepared speech. -- i do not have a prepared speech. i have three young children and i feel that this project -- we have a space across the street that has been ignored, abandoned. we have planted seeds and tried to creat

let me go to the governor christi, lean forward you know. let me ask you about this thing. t you have a label, and i grew up in pennsylvania. you're an eisenhower republican. and so are you, mr. inglis, perhaps a more conservative version, and eisenhower republican was for free trade, fiscal responsibility. strong defense. i mean, why don't just say you're eisenhower republicans instead of pretending that you don't have a label? because all of you guys seem to be -- even bloomberg fits that category. >> i think that's true and say okay to stay republican or a democrat. >> rock feller. >> rockefeller, eisenhower and even republican reagan, i mean here was a guy. >> no, no, you're not a reagan republican. no you're not. >> he understood at least civility which is so important. he and tim o'neil who was speaker much of his term probably didn't agree on much of anything and yet they the common sense, if you will, and the civility to be able to get together after hours, a couple of irishmen and have a cold one, and you know we have to get back to that point where there can be per

. >> let me ask you specifically about that. there have been moderate republicans and people like scott brown, senator snowe from maine, senator murkowski from alaska. i'm sure they're upset with me calling them moderate. some have said they support repeal in principal but voted against it the last time it came up with procedural objections. they wanted things to be sequenced differently. why shouldn't we believe that's going to happen again on saturday? >> we're just very hopeful. this is a stand-alone bill. they have said -- these republicans have said that they support this repeal. this is their chance to vote on this repeal. it's not associated with anything else. it's a simple stand-alone bill. i believe we're going to do this. we also have the dream act up. the s.t.a.r.t. treaty, another great example of the treaty you're talking about. this is a treaty that first was the baby of ronald reagan. the last time it was modified was under george bush. you have seen everyone from collin powell to condoleezza rice supporting it.

let me ask you a question to be on the record. 20 years from now, i will check back in. he mentioned as you have looked at the trajectory of your career, what do you make of this trajectory, this journey so far? >> i am really grateful. i will look back and i look at all the opportunities that i have had to work really hard and really challenge myself. i like to do things that scare me. i like to do things they do not know if i will be able to do. i need the help of people around me. i love collaboration. and look at some of my work and stay, that is where i can be better. i want to continue to grow. i want to work with filmmakers that will help me go deeper. >> is there a particular role that has scared to more than the others? which particular character has scared to the most? >> it is hard to just use one that would scare me the most. they all have their challenges. with "boys don't cry", if i did not pass as a boy, it will not work. this was someone's life. with that he can -- betty anne, still is living on the earth today. if i did not justice, i would not be able to

let me ask you a request -- been a tricky response. sk you a question meant to be entirely neutral. the preference of opponents -- let me -- let us say you are probably here and argue to defend the proposition. >> i accept that assumption, sir. [laughter] >> do you want us to get to the merits of the issue here? in other words, the you want us to sidestep baker? >> no, not at all. i believe baker is binding on this court. my opening legal point of -- point, would have been in fact this is not the first court to take up and deal with the very 14th amendment issues that the plaintiffs to bring here today. in fact, there have been eight appellate courts, state and federal, who have addressed these issues and so far as they relate to challenges to traditional marriage laws just like proposition 8. and all eight of those courts have upheld the traditional marriage laws and rejected the 14th amendment claims. and one of those cases, your honor, is baker v. nelson, the supreme court case that we submit remains a good law, remains binding on th

let me ask you about that. he walked it back the next day. do you think race and insensitivity on the issue is a problem for him? >> i think he was saying it wasn't that bad in his city. i think that city was less bad than a lot of other places in mississippi in the early '60s. it's a pretty interesting profile. people should read the whole profile. >> chris: yes, sir. a great christmas gift. >> yeah! for the holiday season. >> i don't think they'll hold against him one sentence how he remembers things when he was 16 years old. he's a good governor. there are a lot of governors that are impressive, jindal, and dams and -- daniels and rick perry. >> chris: he says he is not going to run. let me mention some that we haven't and some we have. mike huckabee. tim pawlenty. newt gingrich, former speaker of the house. senator john thune of south dakota. mitch daniels, governor of indiana. let me ask and just throw this open. who jumps out among those? >> it's interesting when you throw them out like that. thune jumps out because he has the least bagg