Liberal Dan Radio 5/21/2015: Bobby Jindal is an embarrassment.

On the May 21, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Right as it looked like Louisiana wasn’t going to embarass itself, again, with discriminatory laws Bobby Jindal comes to save the day to keep Louisiana pushing downwards to the bottom of every list. Hypocrite Jindal issued an executive order directing his administration to basically enforce the legislation that wasn’t passed.

Say what? I will go into why that is majorly hipocritical. I will also go into why his executive order is not only discriminatory, but is poorly constructed as well.

If time permits I will also go into other issues and take your calls as well.

So for more Talk From The Left, That’s Right, tune in at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember, you can also support the show by going to the Liberal Dan Go Fund Me page.

Liberal Dan Radio 4/30/2015: Marriage and #BaltimoreUprising

On the April 30, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio I will be discussing some of the points made at the Supreme Court hearing on Obergefell V Hodges, what very may well be the final marriage equality case seen by the Supreme Court.

And then I will be discussing the Baltimore Uprising movement, the killing of Freddie Gray, and why there is a lot of hypocrisy by many white people, especially Conservative white folks, on many of the issues that are being raised.

I won’t be doing any special bits this week because these issues are far too serious for jokes

Liberal Dan Radio 4/23/2015: Libertarian Problems and also ACA subsidies

On the April 23, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Yesterday was Earth Day. To celebrate it I had shared a picture on my facebook wall saying “Happy Libertarian Earth Day” with a picture of a sunken ship and pollution everywhere. This caused a big debate that I will discuss here. On many issues I do believe Libertarians have it right (mostly because they agree with liberals on those issues). However, in some areas their line of reasoning is flawed and even damaging. Can the invisible hand effectively stop pollution? Does the non aggression principal allow for government regulation? I will be going into these issues in the first half of the hour.

In the second half of the hour I will be discussing King V Burwell. Arguments were made back in March and the Supreme Court will be making a decision. I will have on as a guest Todd Haley, an individual who was able to get affordable health coverage under the ACA and whose case was brought up by Harvard Law School Center for Health Law and Public Policy. Mr. Haley would lose affordable coverage and would be adversely effected by a ruling against subsidies on exchanges that are federally run. I will also discuss the ridiculous nature of the arguments made against these subsidies.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week, and more on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember, you can always support the show by contributing to the Liberal Dan Radio Go Fund Me page.

Liberal Dan Radio 4/9/2015: More on Food Babe Garbage and Bigotry issues

On the April 9, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

The “Food Babe” is getting a lot of negative publicity this week with a well written article on Gawker that is clearly showing the idocy of her and her followers. A counter group called “Banned By Food Babe” is cited the article. And since both the Liberal Dan Radio twitter accound and my personal twitter account has been banned by one of the people contributing to the stupification of America, I fit right in. Sure we have some differences but if you have been blocked/banned by the “Food Babe” by all means check this group out .

More information has come out about the Indiana law that would allow for anti-gay discrimination. I will further discuss this issue.

I will also be discussing the murder of Walter Scott.

Those issues, tweet of the week, headlines, and more on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left That’s Right, Thursdays at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember to please support the show by contributing to the Liberal Dan Radio GoFundMe page.

This video shows why Conservatives just don’t get it.

Please go check out this video from “Louder with Crowder” before reading any further (if you have not already done so).

Now, if your head has not already exploded from his many flawed arguments (or if you are still not seeing the flawed arguments made by Mr. Crowder) please allow me to illuminate you.

1) He starts off the video getting the argument wrong. This is not about bakers refusing to make wedding cakes with specific designs on them. This is about bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for gay people. Need proof of this? Look at the Colorado case that pretty much spawned much of the debate over this issue. The baker did not refuse the design. The baker refused to serve them because they are gay.

Let me be clear. A baker would be more than free to say no to designing any cake that was deemed objectionable. Let’s say you had a baker who followed halal, kept Kosher, or had a vegetarian kitchen. If a gay customer wanted a wedding cake that had frosting flavored with real bacon, the baker could freely reject the customer who was gay. The basis for the rejection would be absolutely legal. Let’s take another example. Let’s say a baker would refuse to create objectionable artwork like genitals on a cake. That baker would likely oppose making such a cake for anybody regardless of sexual orientation. Such a customer could be turned away, gay or not.

So this clearly is not about making a “fabulous” cake. This is about refusing to serve people who are in homosexual relationships. With that being said, you could likely take the rest of the video with a grain of salt. Any point made after the initial argument would be based on a false premise and would automatically be false. But let’s take a look and see what other faulty arguments Mr. Crowder can make.

2) Why does it matter what they do in Iran, or the Middle East, or even Canada? Those countries are not a part of America. We are discussing the laws in our states, not the laws of other countries. So what other countries do is irrelevant. But let’s see what he is trying to say by mentioning what these other countries do (especially in the Middle East). The assumption that any person watching his video is likely to make is that he is saying persons who are gay should be happy with their lives here in America because if they were living somewhere else, they would likely be dead for their sexual orientation. This of course is not a very good argument to make. Just because one could have it worse off somewhere else doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t seek to have it better here. This is America. We are supposed to be the greatest nation on the planet. We should strive to be the best, and not just “a little better than Iran or Canada”.

Furthermore, I could also turn this around on Mr. Crowder. A Christian in the Middle East might not be able to open a bakery. If they did, and they denied to bake a cake for a wedding they might not agree with (say a Muslim wedding), what might happen to that person? All we are doing here in America is asking them to bake a cake for persons who are gay and are getting married. So shouldn’t he just be happy with the way things are and being “forced” to make people who are gay cakes? No? That argument doesn’t work? Didn’t think so. It also doesn’t work when you use it on persons who are gay.

3) His point at the end about how he felt like they were going to blow him up? Disgusting. Plain and simple.

So there you have it. Mr. Crowder starts his argument from an incorrect premise and it continues to fall apart over the course of the video. Seems like Mr. Crowder was more interested in being popular than being right.

Liberal Dan Radio 4/2/2015: More On Anti-Gay Bigots

On the April 2, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

The topics of several recent shows come together to form this show. It is kind of like a Voltron of bigotry and internet stupidity. I will be continuing my discussion about the law in Indiana, what Governor Pense is claiming that he will do about it now, and why other states laws are nothing like the Indiana law that was just recently passed.

I will also talk about the Conservative backlash to criticism of the Indiana law and why they are following the same formula I described previously in a show (i.e.that it is more important on the internet to be popular than to be correct).

Those issues,headlines, tweet of the week, and more this week on Liberal Dan Radio: Talk From The Left, That’s Right.

If you want to help support the show, either by buying advertising or by just making a small contribution to help me expand, pelase check out the Liberal Dan Radio Go Fund Me page.

Why Apple CEO Tim Cook Is Not A Hypocrite

You have seen the articles and the memes going around the internet today. Apple CEO Tim Cook stated that “pro discrimination ‘religious freedom’ laws are dangerous“. This caused a Conservative backlash and as I stated in a previous show of mine, when debating politics on the internet it is more important to be “popular” than it is to be “right”.

One such meme posted by “Chicks on the Right” states that Apple CEO Tim Cook won’t do business in Indiana because he can’t “tolerate discrimination” against Gays but will do business in countries where homosexual acts are punishable by death.

First problem with the meme. While the article does contain the words “never tolerate discrimination” it does not assert, or even imply, that Apple as a company or Tim Cook personally will stop doing business in Indiana. In fact, it says the opposite. It states that Apple is open for business to anyone. Apple is not closing up shop in Indiana. It is not going to refuse to sell you an iPhone or iPad or other iDevice to you if your address is contained within the borders of Indiana. So on its face the meme is a lie. He is not a hypocrite for doing business in those other countries because he hasn’t even stopped doing business in Indiana.

The website “the week” author Shikha Dalmia cites Cook’s editorial claims that Cook is calling for a “business boycott of Indiana”. Do a search on the editorial for yourself. There is no mention of the word “boycott” anywhere. And from her article in she cites herself in her article from The Week to attack Cook for the boycott that doesn’t exist, claiming that the boycott is irresponsible. Good job there Dalmia. Cite yourself as proof that Cook is doing what he isn’t. So much for journalistic integrity.

But even if this was not about what Cook, or Apple, does as it pertains to business, it still shows another problem in political debate today. I have a Conservative friend on facebook in particular who will often ask me why I have not spoken out about a particular event (that he deems similar to other things that I have complained about). He doesn’t take the time to determine if I have heard about the event in question or to even allow me to consider if that event is actually related to those other things that I am complaining about .He will just assert a level of hypocrisy on my part for not standing up and complaining about that particular event since I claim to stand up for all events of that type.

Here is the problem with this logic. It basically means that in order for me to be an advocate against racism (the most frequent kind of topic he will bring up) that I have to know of every single possible racist event that has happened recently and my failure to address each and every one of them supposedly weakens my overall argument. His position is, of course, ridiculous. I cannot possibly be expected to know about every single wrong that has taken place to every single person in this country. I also cannot be expected to know about every single event that has taken place that he will wrongly connect with the things I advocate for. Furthermore, even if I did know about each and every one of them I cannot be expected to make a comment about each an every one of them. So the idea that my failure to comment on each and every item proves that I am some sort of hypocrite is obviously flawed as well. So even if we wanted to bring this meme, or the arguments of others making similar arguments, down to the “well why isn’t Tim Cook talking about every single bad thing that happens to persons who are Gay”, it is still a ridiculous argument that these Conservatives* are making and their attempts to be popular at the cost of being wrong should be called out.

All Cook has said was that we shouldn’t tolerate discrimination against gay people, even if it is in under the guise of religious freedom. He hasn’t called for boycotts. He hasn’t said that Apple will stop doing business in Indiana. So any editorial, meme, facebook post, tweet, blog entry, etc that starts with such b.s. should be closed and ignored with great haste.

*As a side note, liberal people have also done the same thing to me previously. This is not a left/right thing. This is purely a “better to be popular than right” thing.

Liberal Dan Radio 03/26/2015: The proposed Florida bathroom law

On the March 26, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

Ted Cruz has announced his candidacy. I will explain why he shouldn’t be President because of one simple fact. I will also explain why that one simple fact has nothing to do with his place of birth.

Indiana and California are dealing with some very disturbing anti-gay legislation. I will go into each of those topics and give my opinion on them.

I will also be talking to my fellow Disney freak Kaden. Kaden lives in Florida and is very concerned about a new bathroom law that is being pushed in Florida and the impact it would have on transfolk like himself.

Those topics, headlines, tweet of the week, and more at 8pm Central on Liberal Dan Radio, Talk From The Left, That’s RIght.

If you want to support the show, please consider backing the Liberal Dan GoFundMe page.

Why does Hillary need a challenger?

There is a common theme going around Democratic circles that the Democratic Party would be stronger in the 2016 general election if some other candidates enter the race. The Boston Globe even suggested that Elizabeth Warren should run despite her statements to the contrary.

But is this the case? Should Warren run? I could see myself at some point voting for a candidate Warren. She is a very strong advocate on income inequality and does not need a wordsmith in presenting her words to the American public. Would her candidacy help the Democratic Party gain momentum and become stronger for a general election. History does show us that the Democrats can win after a long primary. President Obama won after a long fought primary with Hillary Clinton.

However, President Obama also won reelection without any primary fight. That should be enough proof in and of itself that a primary challenger is not needed to help a party win an election.

In fact, sometimes a primary challenger can harm a party. Jimmy Carter was rather unpopular in 1980. Having Ted Kennedy in the election did nothing to help the Democratic Party win the 1980 election against Ronald Reagan.

The last two examples are incumbents running. So why do I bring them up? We won’t have an incumbent in 2016, this is true. However, Hillary Clinton comes with so much popularity that she almost gets to be treated as if she was an incumbent in spirit even if not in reality. The GOP will likely have to run against Hillary Clinton as if she was an incumbent and as such they will have to spend less time focusing on what makes them the (supposedly) better choice. This helps Hillary. If Hillary gets an opponent in the primary that spends time slinging barbs at her, it is possible that this could help the GOP in the general election as well.

So what does this mean? Should we just blindly follow Hillary without question? Absolutely not. If a good candidate comes along and can make a compelling argument as to why he or she is a better choice than Hillary Clinton I may very well vote for him or her (well, that is if Louisiana has enough money to actually hold a primary and if I choose to change from a no party registration). But we should also not blindly support having an opponent to Hillary Clinton if doing so harms the future nominee.

In short, be careful what you wish for. It could come back to bite you in the ass.

Liberal Dan Radio 3/2/2015: Will the internet destroy society?

On the March 12, 2015 episode of Liberal Dan Radio:

The Hillary Clinton email drama continues and many people are wrong about it on both sides of the aisle. I will go over what each side is wrong on this and why it ultimately will not matter in the 2016 Presidential election.

The backlash over the racist song sung by members of the University of Oklahoma chapter of SAE continues as well. Liberal Dan radio endorses the idea that racists should be shamed. Unfortunately some people are being irresponsible and I will explain why.

This leads me to my final topic which is the internet being the downfall of society. A tool that could be used for such good, I fear, will be harnessed in all the wrong ways and cause its downfall. I will review a few of my reasons behind this fear.

Those issues, headlines, tweet of the week, and words of redneck wisdom Thursday at 8pm Central on Blog Talk Radio.

Remember, I am still running the Liberal Dan Radio Go Fund Me page. Please support it.