Ambush journalism at its best — as Steve Green assaults Bill Whittle and Scott Ott with gritty headlines to get their hot takes on breaking news. Topics include…
- MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell reveals deep secret about Joe Biden.
- Democrat Tulsi Gabbard headlines Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
- Canadian MP says trucker protest convoy’s ‘Honk. Honk’ is a euphemism for “Hail Hitler.”
- China Winter Olympics were a multi-billion dollar ratings disaster for NBC.
- Plus, can you solve the meaning of VP Kamala Harris’ statement on sanctions against Russia over Ukraine?
Stephen Green’s Right Angle Lightning Round is a production of our Members, who fund it and run their own blog and forums. They also tap exclusive access to Backstage content, which many say is their favorite show of a 10-episode week. To become a Member, click the big green button above. To donate without joining, click the big blue button.
23 replies on “Lightning Round LIII: MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reveals Joe Biden’s Deep Secret”
Sorry Scott. The Olympics are irreversibly political. I say let them end.
I disagree with polluting CPAC with Leftist speakers. If a conservative wants to “hear the other side,” he or she can look literally ANYWHERE else in our society. CPAC should be reserved for “iron sharpening iron.” Polluting CPAC with Leftist speakers is like a church allowing a muslim or an atheist preach from their pulpit to “hear the other side.”
I’ve never been to CPAC, but I would bet my next retirement check that there is plenty of “iron sharpening iron” going on — most of that occurring in the non-keynote speaker presentations. I think Scott has a good point (this time – love ya, Scott, but sometimes you lean toward Kumbahya) in that a function of a political organization should consist of efforts to “win over the other side.” Otherwise, it’s largely an echo chamber and usually echo chambers result in everybody getting a headache because the larger points are missed and the minutiae becomes the focus.
As Steve quite rightly pointed out, Gabbard is NOT a conservative by any stretch. I reviewed her positions on the issues and while she talks a good game, she cannot be trusted. At the same time, let her come in and speak. If nothing else, one can learn to “sharpen one’s iron” by hearing the opposition and forming arguments against those positions.
I swear, while Steve was reading the alleged Vice President’s statement, I could feel my brain cells start to die.
Re: Kamala’s speech … but aren’t you glad we have a vice president who is a woman of color? I mean, isn’t that all that really matters?
That’s me. I just don’t turn on the TV. I have other things to do, and there’s nothing there that I need to watch.
Yup. Mrs E is addicted to the damn thing. I don’t even know how to use the 3,465 remotes that clutter the living room.
His responses are bizarre because his brain is clearly riddled with some sort of rot.
Re: the Camel-A’s Munich (how appropriate) babbling gibberish, she’d also put Norm Crosby out of business if he was still with us. Alas, while I don’t know what his politics used to be, we know he’s VOTING blue THESE days.
Kennedy was also confident because he knew the press would cover for him no matter what.
My favorite segment every month!
And Steve’s head grew 3 sizes that day 😉
Hey Scott. You must think we are all clueless, or maybe you are. Norway ALWAYS wins the medal count in the winter olympics no matter what year. Secondly, no panty waste male skater is going to do Indiana Jones unless it’s with glitter and scarves. The real men who are skaters are on the hockey teams. How about commenting on what you know or, at least, researched. smh
Wow, check fire, friendlies down range …
You could have made the points you wanted to make without being rude and insulting our host Scott Ott. Or if that was some sort of attempt at humor it failed miserably.
This isn’t FakeBook or YouTube. You don’t need to flame someone like that in here. That kind of thing is sometimes called for even here but this isn’t one of those cases.
A little civility goes a long ways. Until it doesn’t. Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn’t mean they think “we are all clueless” or that they are clueless themselves. Scott Ott doesn’t come anywhere close to that description in either case. The very idea is completely absurd.
A disagreement is a disagreement. It is not license to launch into an ad hominem attack with insults in lieu of making arguments and stating your points. You ought to be grown up enough by now to know that.
Lighten up, unlock that smoke pole you’re using, dump out the hyperbolic bullshit ammo and try to show a little respect for a respectable person.
RE: Kamala Harris
Many years ago (I think after one of Reagan’s SOTU) I started reading speeches. 1 – it is much shorter and 2 -you could look at the word choice and divine my own meaning.
With Kamala, I can’t watch and listen as her voice in nearly intolerable; but reading what she has said is impossible to figure out what someone wrote for her and she mangled.
Uh, oh … I feel a story coming on.
It is a point of pride for me that in all the places I’ve been and all the raunchy company I’ve been in those places with (Marines can be magnificently raunchy) I have never engaged the services of a prostitute.
It’s against my religion to use someone that way and I pass no judgement on “working girls” but I have to confess my motives for abstinence were not all completely noble. In the Marines if you catch an STD you catch a load of grief along with it. The hospital corpsmen are likely as not to dose your case with squared off needles and an excess of vigorous glee. All your buddies will give you a constant razzing for “Earning your Green Wings”. In the Marines, a badge with wings on it means you’re airborne qualified. The idea of “Green Wings” is that you jumped into a zone you should have avoided and I don’t think I need to be any more graphic about that.
It’s not like I have no experience with that side of life either. I would go along as a lookout against MPs, local cops on the take and the kind of thug that loves to roll Marines when they have their pants down around their ankles. Sort of like a Designated Driver kind of situation. So while I may not have been a customer I’ve certainly been an observer of the trade.
Post active duty one time in Southern France I was waiting at a cafe for a friend of mine. A Brit who I worked with on occasion. I was with his wife. I’m a good person to have escort your wife if you’re not available. While we sat there and had our cappuccinos (probably café au lait, come to think of it) or whatever I glanced at some activity across the street. Situational awareness is a good habit to have.
Hmm … looks familiar. Yep, just what I thought it was.
So I said to my friend’s wife “Ever see a cathouse before?” She was a nice girl though not a bit naïve but I figured this topic might be out of her ken.
She said “Of course not. Why do you ask?” She was trying to figure out where the conversation was going … Can’t blame her for that.
I said, “Because there’s one across the street right behind you.”
She didn’t believe me, we were in the downtown area of Avignon and it’s a generally decent place. So she said “How can you possibly know that?”
I said, “Turn around and watch. See that woman standing in the doorway to the apartments over that shop? Yeah, her. OK now watch a minute … See that guy that just casually stops to talk to her? See her reach inside her blouse and pull out a key, unlock the door and they both go upstairs? See the woman who came out to stand in the door to replace her? That cycle has repeated several times while I’ve been watching. Yeah, cathouse. No doubt about it.”
My buddy’s wife said “That’s amazing. How do you spot such things? I could have looked right at that and never had a clue.”
I said, “Seriously, consider who you’re talking to.”
It was no ill reflection on my friend’s wife that she didn’t know about such things. Just the opposite. It’s no ill reflection on you or anyone else if you don’t recognize the typical, unmistakable actions of a prostitute when you see them. Just the opposite but …
They all act like Kacklin’ Kammy because that’s what she is and to me the picture is crystal clear.
It doesn’t matter if we’re talking Francs, Dollars, Deutsch Marks, Pounds Sterling, a sugar daddy or political favor and advancement. There’s a taint and a whole bunch of tells that latch onto someone willing to sell their body for profit and keep doing that until they’re too old and unappealing to succeed in that market.
They have to “advertise” because you never know when a better, more profitable john will pop up. So they send “I’m available at the right price” signals all the time. That becomes a habit and they don’t even know they’re doing it. In her case, she might as well scream it out on TV because Kamelnose Harris virtually drips with those telltales.
Kacklin’ Kammy is a prostitute of the most common sort. Her skill sets all relate to that pursuit. She doesn’t know anything else and never needed to because that’s what has always worked for her. More the fool Potato Joe for not seeing that in her and I’m pretty sure he’s not even getting any of what he paid for.
Sorry to be so blunt and my apologies for the blunt topic. Cool story though, my buddy went on to become a member of the House of Lords and that makes his wife “Lady ___”. It’s a familiar name but I have neither right nor permission to use it so I won’t. I wonder if she recalls the day her hubby’s friend schooled her on how to spot a cathouse?
🙂
A while back I read one angle that gets lost in Cumala’s rise to the top – what happened to the #MeToo (Or as Chris Plante reads it, “Pound Me Too”) movement? Isn’t sleeping your way up the ladder perfect fuels for sexual harassment?
And great story, dude! =8^)
Ditto. The words she uttered were gibberish, written or spoken. The black face diaper was certainly a distraction, but an equal distraction was the incessant “nodding” – perhaps another nervous twitch like the famous hyena laugh.
Wow, if brains were dynamite, Kamala Harris couldn’t blow her nose. This is who you get when you base a person’s value on their skin color, not their skills and ability.
Affirmative Action applied to political appointees is a tactic to get your own, pliable, compliant people into positions of power. It’s basically a puppet scheme meant to place puppets in office.
If you announce before any picks that you’re going to “appoint a black person” to an office that nullifies the need to place the best possible person in office. Then you can say that anyone who doesn’t approve of the appointee is a racist.
If the goal were simply to put a person of any particular racial composition in office there would be no need to announce you’re going to pick solely from that racial demographic. Just go ahead and quietly limit your candidates and then pick from the best of them. If you do that then rather than race being the issue the candidates qualifications are the sole issue. If you happen to think that the best possible candidate just happens to be black then race doesn’t enter into it.
But then you get no “points” with your base for selecting a black person either. You also cannot make accusations of racism if qualifications are the determining factor.
This is a political tactic that has been successful for the Democrat Left previously.
This tactic is insulting to black people because it assumes they cannot rise to that level on their own merits … because they’re black. Affirmative action in any form is a kind of racism.
The problem is that accusations of “racism” have been so overplayed that the wheel is coming full circle back to the issue of qualifications.
The point of failure with this, like so many things the Democrat Left does, is that the Democrats don’t know when to quit and they don’t think they need to hedge their bets by being crafty about how they do things anymore.
So rather than place exemplary, qualified black people in office we end up with people like a giggling, shallow harpy that has no clue what she’s doing. That reflects poorly on the choice of a black person for that office and has the opposite effect the Democrat Left was trying to achieve. In playing the race card with abandon the end result reflects badly on black people.
If the candidate for office was chosen solely for being black and that pick fails miserably, that retards and does not advance the cause of black people in America. Because obviously if Kacklin’ Kammy is the best black person you could find then there are no qualified black people to choose from.
The fact is that there are qualified black people to choose from. They’re just not politically optimal for the agenda of the Democrat Left.
Unfortunately, this choice, if confirmed, would be around for several decades and could wreak havoc with our laws. I would hope a POC (any color actually) with any integrity would decline to be part of this obvious ploy. It would always be in the back of your mind that you were chosen simply because of the color of your skin.
This is all true and I agree with you. However, this SCOTUS pick isn’t critical to the balance of the court. If she’s affirmed, which is still in doubt and not helped by the method of her selection at all, she’s just replacing a retiring liberal with another one.
It’s stupid and wrong to go about the selection process in the way Biden’s doing it but we all knew that there would be an iffy pick from Biden (and the unelected committee operating his strings) anyway.
There’s just no way currently that we’re going to get a good SCOTUS pick from the Democrat Left the way things stand now, no matter what voodoo and spin-the-bottle caliber methods they employ to make their selection. It’s not going to happen that they’ll select an Originalist no matter what.
If there’s a bright side to this it’s that choosing a dingbat Leftist Judge with a very shaky record keeps Kacklin’ Kammy out of the picture and tamps down some of the noise the Left has been making about packing the court.
I agree with your position on deciding on anything other than qualifications hurts the group the unqualified person belongs to. However…… If I have a job for someone to fill and a have more than one with pretty much equal qualifications, I would choose the person from a lesser represented group. Why? One: They would probably have different experiences to draw on, and that would be a good thing. Two: It could help qualified people in that group come to mind for hiring. In other words, overcome prejudgiing according to group, and look at the individual.