started ragging on jimmy and it caught on. >> it's always easy to do this. glad you're on board. >> it's great to be here. [chuckling] >> all right, let's get started. why not. our first topic, are the republicans trying to sabotage the economy? the answer is yes! second topic. [laughter] we'll have, michael presents this. >> it's true. the republicans have been, i would say since 2010, having a concerted effort, and an announced and public effort to sabotage this economy. just this past week or two weeks ago john boehner went to a fiscal summit in washington, d.c. the speaker of the house talking about--you'll remember last summer, the debate over the debt ceiling, whether it should be raised. john boehner brought it up again, something that mate congress approval level just plummet. of course they did raise the debt ceiling without a lot of

the concessions that either side wanted to put in place to get out of the other side. here is john boehner still talking about this. >> yes, allowing america to default on its debt would be irresponsible. but it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process. when the time comes i will again insist, my principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase. >> personally i cannot think of anything more politically foolish. whatever you think of john boehner, he's smarter than the guy who stands there and says we oughting to back to the debt ceiling. even jay carney and the white house were dumbfounded that the speaker would do this. >> the president made clear as i just said that we're not going to recreate the debt ceiling debacle of last august. it is simply not acceptable to

hold the american and global economy hostage to one party's political ideology. >> that's it. it's one party's ideology. it's the party who voted over the years to raise that debt ceiling consistently. i do understand why john boehner is doing it. "washington post" pulled the recent numbers on the economy and who would handle it better showed the president tied with mitt romney on that score. 47% on this poll and on oncreation, obama is 1% above it. it seems fullish full foolish to me. it was a theme attic thing. mitch mcconnell this is mcconnell in 2010, he came out very early on in the presidency of president obama and said, we don't care what happens. we just want to beat obama. here is our esteemed minority

leader. >> when you said quote, the single most important thing we want to achieve is for president obama to be an one-term president. how do you respond to those democratic lines of attack. >> well, that is true. that's my single political goal along with every active republican in the country. but that's for 2012. >> as we start the discussion here i want to go to jimmy first. look, jimmy, michael is dumbfounded why they would do this politically. but one explanation, obviously look, if you cause the ratings of the country to go down credit rating, you cause a mess. the economy worsens the president loses. it's fairly obvious, do you think they would stoop to that? >> of course they would stoop to that. is the pope catholic? yes, they would stoop to that. my question is when does business start pushing back against eric canter and john boehner. are they going to let gilligan and skipper bring down the economy of america? that doesn't make sense to me.

>> that's an interesting point that i hadn't thought of. ultimately the republican party answers to the chamber of commerce, that's their boss. and the chamber of commerce does like spending. they're like drunken sailors they'll spend like crazy an shovel the money in. will they like the economy taking a hit. maybe they think, we'll take a hit for nine months and then we'll get the guys who will take giant tax cuts. >> small businesses, they'll die out and they don't have as much of a voice. the people who are getting the tax cuts are the massive corporations. those are the people who are supporting the republicans right? i definitely see that as being the bigger issue here. republicans are always going to fight for more and more tax cuts because they're going to speak out for their corporate interests. the small business also die out, and they won't have much. >> cenk: i'll go one step further than that. actually if you're a big business you want the small businesses to die out and the

chamber of commerce does not represent small businesses. they represent gigantic businesses. maybe they would kill two birds with one stone, but that may be too deep. according to the deal that cut spending, some people, the economic policy institute said we may have lost up to 1.8 million jobs, what do you think? >> you presented the question to jimmy as if this were a political slam dunk if it doesn't work out and the debt ceiling doesn't work and we have paralysis in the government and it's a slam dunk and maybe the government look bad. what i'm dumbfounded bad is the idea that the republicans themselves would actually put themselves into the fray again. because it did not work out well for them. >> cenk: that's an interesting point, jayar. who do you think going into the election, unemployment is going

up. it's also going to hurt the republicans in congress. are they taking one for the team so the republican presidential candidate wins or is it just not that good at politics? >> we're taking that deeping into it. sometimes politics politicians are smart sometimes they're stupid. they'll do whatever they want to do, and if something goes wrong you don't have to fight back. it's one of those things that you continue to beat the guys over the head. who cares about the consequences. they don't think these things through. when you ask them, they'll say we're not trying to shut down the government. but they keep training. until the democrats stand up consistently and go off one issue to the next and have a backbone they'll say we lost the last time but they'll cave the next time because that's what they do. >> cenk: these another great point. combining your point with jimmy's point. sometimes, like you're saying,

boehner came out a couple of days ago and did a healthcare proposal who said we're going to keep some parts of obama care and not other parts like mandated. he immediately got a call from the think tanks who said, are you nuts? no, no if we don't have the mandate we want none of that healthcare because the mandate is what pays the healthcare companies. it's possible to jayar's point that boehner could screw up. then jimmy, they would get the call from the chamber of commerce saying, get back in line. but i got to ask you the rest of the media guys says we're all crazy. no, the republicans are good guys--not good guys-- >> cenk, this runs in the republican blood. they think this way. let's not talk about the debt ceiling. the idea that you have a major political party hoping that the economy of their country goes the wrong way just to benefit their electoral prospects is embarrassing. i would say it's a continuing

theme for them. you will remember in the iraq war they were accusing democrats of hoping that the war went poorly all the time, that there would be more debt, more debt, more war debt. they think we're rooting against the country. >> cenk: you're not allowed to make that point because that's jayar jackson's longest-standing point. which is the republicans projection. whatever they think, they say the democrats are doing. >> they can have the point but it's a shame that the point has to be made. >> cenk: final conclusion though, apparently we all agree yeah, they are sabotaging on purpose? >> i think so, clearly. clearly this is sabotaging the economy for the benefit of one political party. >> cenk: all right, listen, it's funny. when i said this on another cable station a year and a half ago, heads exploded. remember i was doing a segment with jonathan of "newsweek," and he said, you can't say that about the republicans. he's a die-hard democrat, kind

of. i know he's a journalist although he's obviously on the left. although i don't want to call him a die-hard democrat but now it's crazy. now the associated press is writing stories saying yeah it's obvious, isn't it. it's fascinating to see how things turn. when we come back, are race and religion fair game in this election? we've got the mormon issue the reverend wright issues but it may take turns in there that you might not expect when we return. networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. tonight at 11 eastern/8

pacific. only on current tv. etch-a-sketch candidate, an image where romney is anti gas.

>> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks." topic number two are race and religion fair game? there it is. that's the question at hand. ana kasparian, explain to me what is happening here. >> well, cenk, there is a g.o.p. super pac that proposed mitt romney's campaign focused on reverend jeff jeremiah wright, the church that the president attended four years ago, and to use to show that obama comes from an extreme church that has extreme beliefs. roland martin talked about whether it was fair game. >> it didn't work in 2008. it's not going to work in 2012. give it up. you can try all day to drudge of sermons of jeremiah wright, and it won't happen.

ricketts wants to do that, then you're putting on the table mormonism and how african-americans were treated by the mormon religion. i don't think mitt romney wants to have that conversation considering that he was an elder and his dad was an elder and they did not embrace african-americans. >> i think roland martin makes a good point. it didn't hurt president obama's campaign whatsoever. but herman cain did talk about a situation, romney had a response of the super pac and made a decision as to whether or not he would attack reverend wright in his campaign. >> it's very clear i repudiate that effort. i think it's the wrong course for a pac or a campaign. i hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the future

and about issues and about a vision for america. i've been disappointed in the president's campaign to date which has focused on character assassination. i just think that we're wiser to talk about the issues of the day, what we do to get america working again. >> cenk: i love that for a couple of reasons. one, after the republicans planned a character assassination attack on president obama it's how dare obama do character assassinations. but that was the point you made earlier, michael, which i gave jayar for, which is projection. they're in the middle of a character assassination campaign, how can the other guy do it. on the issue, let me correct roland romney. mitt romney's dad george romney was very good on civil rights so keep him out of it. >> the church was not so great either. the mormon church was not so

great on civil rights until recently. >> cenk: they did not allow black clergy. they did not allow black people to get married in their holy temple until 1978. that's what i wanted to start with you on, jayar. you know i read a long story about mitt romney when he was younger, and he's at byu and he gets mad that stanford won't play basketball with byu because byu is part of the mormon church and clearly they discriminate against black people and they're outraged. do we hold that against mitt romney after all these years, and is that something that you should hold against? >> should we or would we? >> cenk: you tell me. >> though are entirely different things. as it was brought up, if this comes to that realm, then you bring it up. but there is a reason why you can't, it's going to be between mormonism versus one guy jeremiah wright. there is a radical preacher in this one church that president obama sat in.

that's not an indictment of christianity. that's an indictment against jeremiah wright. how can you compare that to a religion. you can't compare it to one hateful guy who thinks all black people hate america. it's a different argument. >> cenk: on the reverend wright issue do you think that's what they're trying to drive at. president obama is black reverend wright is black they're the same. they eight america. >> the character asass incarceration. it's guilt by association being near this guy. this guy's belief of black americans. on this issue and every list of everything that president obama wants to do, it's based on hating america. >> cenk: i know i'm basing this on the race issue. but hannity and limbaugh put it on the race.

>> they do. >> cenk: why is it black take over america? >> they take a movement and blow it up to an extreme. black liberation theology is not violent or take-over. it started in the 1960s and it was all about basically focusing on how blacks are mistreated in the country, and how they need to fight for equality. >> cenk: how dare they! i didn't know black liberation was that dangerous my god! >> they assume most viewers are not going to do their home work on black liberation and they'll hear that phrase and freak out. >> cenk: like people will freak out if they hear black liberation. >> well, they will. >> and if they hear a preacher who was the president's preacher who said, goddamn america, which was taken out of context. >> isn't that the same thing

when it was said when they said god lift his hand and let the terrorists attacking. isn't that goddamning america? >> cenk: absolutely. >> doesn't that go back to the ability to stick something on them that needs to be stuck on them? >> cenk: that's interesting because the republicans are willing to use religion to bash others, but the democrats are scared to death to do that. >> right. >> cenk: that's just a little, you know, uneven playing field. >> yes, can i just jump in really quick. look, even say what you will about mitt romney or john mccain, but you got to give them credit for never agreeing to air these types of ads. right? >> cenk: mccain you have to give credit. he made that decision. that's absolutely clear. romney is the kind of guy oops, did a super pac run that ad? oh, my god i can't believe what obama did, what? [chuckling] any way--

>> running those ads though. give whatever credit you want, i don't give them a whole lot of credit to either of them. the threat of running those ads were in the news cycle for days. you had jeremiah wright saying goddamn america for days. >> cenk: that's what they did the last time around in 2008. it's not that they ran so many reverend wright ads, but fox news, oh my god reverend wright. >> it's a free ad-a-thon. >> and you hear these stories of not being vetted. well, isn't being president for three years vetting to be there? >> cenk: apparently not the case because george bush was president for four years and-- [chuckling] >> i say they do this, and it will backfire on them just like it backfired on mccain when sarah palin ran around calling them a terrorist. he had to say's not an arab but a decent family man.

it hurt them. it made his whole campaign look horrible. >> cenk: should obama use race and say, mitt romney is white. no? that's not going to work? let's move back to religion. i want to get back there. here is the thing about religion. on one hand it seems wrong and liberal to question anybody's religion. except, i'm agnostic and i don't like religion playing a role in our politics at all. any time we make a decision based on--what does for things, i know people get mad when i say that. but i don't believe what you believe. i believe we should make our laws based on logic and reason. what is going on in mormonism and will it effect mitt romney. >> i think it will effect mitt romney. i think it will probably suppress his base from coming out because they don't want to vote for a guy who is not really

a christian. 1978 is when they caught up with the civil rights movement. they were ten years behind lbj. if they open up this can of windstorms it will hurt them. i would love for them to say see them do it. they have taken on mormonism heavily, but i would like to see people generally ridiculing mormonism. >> cenk: i don't want people to think that we're picking on mormon. as an agnostic, i find all religion the same. my question isn't really religion is not rational because i don't think any of them are. my question is does mitt romney actually believe it? if it does and then he thinks like when bush thought we needed an act of god, that's lunatic stuff. >> there is a difference. there are people--there is a perception of what you really

believe. at least from these guys point of view. you want the general public, the religious public that you're legislating on your belief and your belief in your own religion. and it's a christian nation and that's what our laws are based on. the people who you're talking to believe that. that's how i live my life. why can can't my leaders of the country live the same way. you can't say that about mormonism, he's laying under the radar. if we go on this line i'm going to legislate based on my religion. what is your religion? what is legislating on? >> cenk: that's why mitt romney doesn't want to bring it up because it's foreign to the average guy. now, when we come back we're going to talk about same-sex marriage. now we know that on policy

grounds it is the right idea. but on politics, was it a good more or not a good move when we return. you're about to watch an ad message created by a current tv viewer for hershey's air delight. >>during the blind taste tests today you'll be tasting five different kinds of chocolate. okay ladies, let's try chocolate number 4. >>oh! >>hurh! >>umm. >>okay now taste your final piece of chocolate. >>umm! umm! ohh! >>umm, ah-hum. >>umm! >>ahh!

>>hershey's new air delight milk chocolate, a lighter, airier meltier hershey's happiness. in 2012 alone. go to our website, current.com. up next it's out to the campaign trail. a surprising new poll, and that's next right here inside "the war room." planned parenthood. anna talked to a conservative and it got a little contentious. drama, when we return.

i have the most common type of atrial fibrillation, or afib. it's not caused by a heart valve problem. i was taking warfarin, but my doctor put me on pradaxa instead to reduce my risk of stroke. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate) reduced stroke risk 35% better than warfarin. and unlike warfarin, with pradaxa, there's no need for regular blood tests. that's really important to me. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding and seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have a bleeding condition like stomach ulcers, or take aspirin, nsaids, or blood thinners, or if you have kidney problems especially if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all medicines you take any planned medical or dental procedures and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctor's approval as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include

indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. pradaxa is progress. having afib not caused by a heart valve problem increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you can reduce your risk with pradaxa. >> we are back on the young turks, topic number three. is president obama's support for same-sex marriage too politically risky? interesting. to start this conversation we go to jayar jackson. >> yes know president obama came out with same-sex marriage. they've been talking about whether it's good, bad or if it's going to do anything at all. let's see what he had to say after one minute with president biden. >> at a certain point i concluded that for me personally

i should affirm i think same-sex marriage is okay for same-sex couples. >> before president obama came out with same-sex marriage, 52% said it should be legal. while 44% said it should be illegal. but the national polls afterwards it went up a percentage point. 53% said it should be legal, but illegal went down. people have been talking and having local state elections for years now, now it's national. it has changed the whole landscape of what we're looking at. >> that's a complicated question because we're all trending towards gay marriage being legal. it moves from an 8-point

advantage, and a landslide. does it help to have leadership on this? i think it really does. it pushes polls for example in maryland, among black voters i found this interesting. in favor in march, 39%. in favor in may 55%. that's a huge job. so i think when you look at that, when you look at the naacp coming out in favor of gay marriage, your friend, etc. michael, are we seeing leadership making a difference there? >> absolutely you are. one of the things, and we said it on the show two nights ago, the president, when he makes a statement like this, it's not just about going up in the polls. it's about not going down. that our country has progressed to the point. you say this, you do take a risk, as we've said and you don't go down in the polls. you may not be helped by it, but you are not harmed by it.

when you look at the vote necessary maryland, that's a push. that's something that they'll look to president obama, the first black president of the united states making a statement like this. they were slower coming to this issue if you believe polling and then they pushes it a little bit. when you look to leadership. he's not going to make it legislation. he won't make it legal in all 50 states. >> maybe that's a leadership dunk. it's not like there is this group as we talk about black folks in america that just don't have any--any acceptance of gay people. there is a mindset. it's just not said, talked about as much. the leadership comes from someone who is out there and has that kind of megaphone to say something. and what everyone was kind of believing and really didn't have a hardcore opinion against in the first place yeah, sure. >> it's easier to move them if they're not committed to that issue in the first place. >> cenk: it's not just--it has a

domino effect. because then you see jay-z come out. do you think he would have come out of nowhere? >> well, maybe. >> well, reports reporters would not have asked jay-z this question until president obama came out in the news. someone who is as prominent as jay-z, but going back to what michael was saying whether obama will leave it up to the states and something on the federal level, if he believes in gay marriage why not pass it as on the federal level. it's a civil rights issue. >> as i said once before on this show. president obama he's for gay marriage. 's so much better than mitt romney. well? it took him three half years to move on behalf of a group of

people and it's more of an embarrassment that it took him so long. >> i disagree. for a president to be a president and say something like this which prior to now has been a controversial position to say it whether you believe it or not, whether he believes it or not, politically prudent or not did he it. he'll always be known as the first president to do this. i think it's a georgia civil rights. >> cenk: i'm in between here. you know, i know in 1986 president obama filled out a questionnaire saying he was in favor of gay marriage but i'm glad he switched twice. he went to anti-gay marriage so he could be the first president who said he was for gay marriage. now we can say, oh my god, we have the first president who say that he was in favor of gay imager. i think he did it it for the money in terms of the donorrer, a lot of political pressure, but he

did it, and it's a historic moment. if you're in the lbgt community, this is one group he delivered for. got rid of don't ask, don't tell. defense of the marriage act in the courts, now i think if you're in the lbgt community as well as others you should be fighting. you should vote for him, raise money for him, volunteer for him, don't you think so? >> i don't know, but let me say this. the fact that it took him yes it is historic, and it is a big deal that did he it, and it's a good thing that did he it, but the polls already past 50% in favor of it by the time he did it takes some of the-- >> he's a politician he's president. >> look how this littletiy bit itty bit of leadership has a cascade effect. imagine if he led on something else.

>> cenk: yes. >> but to say that he was shoved into doing it, maybe the timing was pushed up, but you knew this president was going in that direction. i always felt he was going in that direction and now you're saying its part of the political political politicalcalcalculous. that's a big step. >> cenk: one last thing on that, michael. in the sweep states they were afraid in the beginning that it might hurt them by a ten-point margin. not big numbers but now they're less likely to vote for him because of this issue rather than more likely to vote for him. now the numbers are a little bit more mixed. how do you think it effects them in those critical swing states. >> i think it's too early to tell. he made the announcement recently. it will settle. i don't think most people vote on something like gay marriage. most people vote on the economy. this is just a social issue. >> where six months later it

will be dubious if they even remember. >> north carolina, they made marriage-- >> cenk: when we come back every democrat along with the republicans are saying we're not attacking bain. well, we're going to attack bain. the question is bain a good company when we come back. >>scores of the most talented filmmakers in the world gather in new york city every year for the tribeca film festival. the eclectic slate of films draws an estimated 3 million people a year. cat coira's film, "while we were here," is about how travel can change the way we look at our lives and loves. >>you never know someone until you travel with them, because it

takes people out of their element. >>(narrator) director morgan spurlock's films have taken him all around the world. his latest, "mansome," is about grooming in the modern man. the project brought him to germany to a professional beard building championship. >>just as there are beauty pageants for women, there are, you know, now these beard growing competitions and mustache competitions for men. >>i'm wayne rosenfeld at the tribeca film festival. battle speech right? may i? [ horse neighs ] for too long, people have settled for single miles. with the capital one venture card you'll earn double miles on every purchase, every day! [ visigoths cheer ] hawaii, here we come. [ alec ] so sign up today for a venture card at capitalone.com. and start earning double. [ all ] double miles! [ brays ] what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no.

[ train whistle blows ] [ ball hitting paddle ] [ orbit girl ] don't let food hang around. yeah! [ orbit trumpet ] clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling. ♪ eat, drink, chew orbit! ♪ if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva.

discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> back on "the young turks." the question now is, is bain a baaad, baaad company dirty bain dirty bain. a lot of democrats say no, no, you don't understand, we raised money from bain capital as well. many said, no, we're not talking

about private equity in general. not bain. but the govern of massachusetts is relevant because bain is in massachusetts. here are two other democrats and what they had to say about bain bain capital. >> mitt romney made a mistake todaying that they created 100,000 jobs. their goal was not to create jobs but to create money for their investors. and they acted within the rules and very responsibly and was a leading firm. >> i would not back off the comments if i were mayor booker. i agree with him. private equity is not a bad thing. in fact, it's a good thing in many instances. >> cenk: yes, they invest in a company and it turns out all right. but in a lot of instances that's not what happens. that's the point you don't hear on tv. in the 1980s when the equity trend started, of the 25

companies acquired, half went bankrupt. and it didn't get better in the 1990s. bain cap in 1988 bought stage stores. it's a leverage buyout. they borrow much more than to buy it and they made $184 million out of that deal. then the stage stores went bankrupt. in 1992 american pad and paper. they put in $5 million and take out $107 million. bankrupt. in 1997 details, $41 million in, 70 million out. this is a partial list. there are far more companies. when they take out the loans that's when they go bankrupt because they can't pay all that debt that they had now which they didn't have before the leverage buyout. what does bain care? they take the money and put it in their pockets. they are very bad. it also has consequences for the american taxpayer. when they take out those debts

it avoids taxes. before the company is bought out it has a 22% tax rate. afterwards because they're paying so much interest that is not counted in taxes, the tax rates is down to 10%. since the year 2,000 2000, it has cost the american taxpayer $130 billion in taxes that we did not collect from those companies that we'll have to pony up. that's not the only way that it costs us. also for example when gst steel went bankrupt after bain capital took it over, oops, we can't pay their pension. they could have paid it out of their own profit but they chose not to. guess who paid the pension for those workers? you got it, the taxpayers. and many are angry justifiably so, and now it's part of an obama campaign ad, let's watch.

>> we had a reputation for quality products. something american made. we were not rich but i could put my daughter through college. that stopped with the buyout of bain capital. >> i know how it works. i now why jobs come and why they go. >> he was like a vampire. he came in and sucked the life out of us. >> bain capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off of this plant. we view mitt romney as a job destroyer. >> he's running for president, and if he's going to run the country the way he ran our business, i wouldn't want him there. >> cenk: michael, i'm going to start with you, so many of these democrats including radner who is on that clip look, they're acting responsibly. is it the same thing to say that following the rules is the same as acting responsibly. >> he looks like a republican. >> cenk: by the way, he works on

wall street. [chuckling] >> yes, going back to what you were asking. there is a point where you need to act responsibly. this question was called the lbo business, lynch buyout. that doesn't sound so good. legislature buyout. let's fancy it up a little. the rules are in their favor. the tax benefits, 22% to 10%. who wouldn't want to do that. they take advantage of those rules. >> cenk: are they a genius because they took advantage of rules? if you could put $40 million in and take $70 million out. >> they're all geniuses. they're all very smart. i can't lose $2 billion. i don't have a mba. you got to be a genius to lose that kind of money. >> cenk: they crash the economy in 2008, the banks did. but private equity, and mitt romney did make a ton of money. >> are they bad?

bain, you quoted the statistic half of the companies went bankrupt. so half the time they're bad. half the time they're good. >> cenk: it's not that good of a track record. >> but it goes back to what you said, the rules have to be changed. they have to skirt the rules or they can live within these rules and do as well as they did. >> cenk: my last point before we go to the break. look, guys, the reason why you don't hear this conversation on other channels is because democrats get money from wall street. and steve radner works on wall street. rom emmanuel got $12 million from wall street. larry sum necessary had a position possibly $39 million because he gave speeches to wall street. they're not going to come out on tv and criticize. and a lot of guys look, look at ana burnett on cnn. she worked on wall street. her husband worked on wall street, do you think they're going to say bain is bad?

we're trying to give that you perspective. we'll leave it right there. we'll discuss whether women should be on the front lines of combat. i've surprising opinion on that, and there is some chance that i'm going to be roundly ridiculed and lambasted when we come back. with great taste... comes great entertainment. the amazing spider-man and twizzlers. the twist you can't resist. see the movie in theaters july 3rd.

[ nervous ] i hope no one recognizes us... you...you think these disguises will... no. [ male announcer ] salty. sweet. and impossible to resist. >> cenk: all right, "the young turks." now next topic. should women be allowed on the front lines? now in the libby lib show like this, you might wonder why is this an even a topic? that's because your host is a bit of neanderthal. one of our producers was so livid. >> even with liberals you see

that they have conservative ideology when it comes to this issue. but this week there were two members of the army who filed a lawsuit against the military because it does not allow women to fight on the front line. according to their lawyer this limitation on the plaintiff's careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement and their future retirement benefits. it turns out that the women talked about this a little bit and it turns out that technically women are fighting on the front lines already. let's watch. >> the issue here already, how often, is that the u.s. military, the meant gone is already moving in that direction. to lift ultimately lift the ban against women serving in combat roles. just here within the last month they lifted restrictions and opened up 14,000 new positions to women in the military in

combat-related roles. not quite combat, but they're getting there. u.s. military officials will tell you you just can't flip a switch and suddenly throw women in these combat roles. >> cenk: well, i hate when they use the flip a switch. you can. shana, let me ask you this first. here are some of my concerns. i'm shot on the battlefield. good luck a woman carrying me. >> now women have been trained to run into battle to help you whether she's a medic to pull you out, they're-- >> cenk: medic, i'm in. >> they're taught to shoot back if they're shot at. they're on the front line. they're in the combat zone. the military is in this word game as they were in "don't ask don't tell." they don't say that women are out there and fighting, then people won't get upset and do anything. we'll gradually easing our way in but in reality they're already there. >> cenk: here is another problem. they're in the front in

afghanistan. they're out on a camp god knows where in kandahar, if you got women there, you're telling me there's not going to be some sort of--look, this is how it is. this is how bad it is. let's play santorum. >> i do have concerns about women in front-line combat. i think that could be a very compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. i think that's probably--it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but i think it would be even more unique if women were in combat and that's not the best interest of men, women or the mission. >> cenk: god, i hope i don't sound that bad. i'm not making the santorum point that they're going to get all emotional. but on the other hand, you put

guys and girls in that context they're going to have sex. >> you're saying that they weren't already having sex? >> cenk: that's a whole other thing. help me out. >> it's similar to saying like if you have gays who are openly gay in the military they're going to take advantage of other men in the military. it's an asinine argument. when it comes to combat, it's not like these people were fighting with their bear hand. we're spending a tremendous amount of our budget on developing weapons. weapons that these people use when they're on the front line. it doesn't matter--the argument about a woman's physical strength versus a man's physical strength does not hold up in this argument. this whole movie-esque description of what happens on the front lines does not hold up either. it's ridiculous. >> you're calling cenk's argument asinine. i hope that does not make them

potty mouth. i say make all the combat troops female. because if we lose you can say oh, you beat a bunk of girls. what's the big deal. >> or you could say, the girls beat you. >> that's right. >> cenk: the point in the morning meeting, look, we're not fighting with bayonettes any nor. i get it. they're shooting guns. how about maybe sale seal team six. they go into the biggest combat areas. they have to pull 1 million pounds and put it on their back. >> in combat every man or woman should be able to meet the physical requirement of that job. >> that is an elite job. >> cenk: what will happen when no woman qualifies for navy seals, discrimination. are you telling me that no one will say that. >> they may say that, but there are certain requirements, i wouldn't argue in favor of those

women. if you have to meet certain physical requirements to be part of that group of people, sorry that's the way it works. >> cenk: i got to leave it right there. we'll come back, but don't worry guys, when we come back. when we come back, i'll going to let you know whether they swung me on this issue or not when we return.

etch-a-sketch candidate, an image where romney is anti gas.

>>steve jobs was many things but he was not a politician. ♪ >> cenk: all right, we're back on "the young turks." they're still trying to convince me to let women on the front lines. i'm the one who decides obviously. michael, one last point. >> remember when you have this conversation, when you have a volunteer army, and for us to say what an volunteer army is

able to do. it's not like you're con scripting people and there is not a draft. >> cenk: that's a good point. >> also when you don't officially say women are not in combat, it can lead to problems for women veterans accessing the same benefits even though they're paid the same they're not able to advance in the same way that men wood in the field because they are not able to have combat experience. >> cenk: those are devastatingly good points. you're not getting as much pay. they can't advance as much. >> guess what country among a number has feel fighter pilots. >> cenk: don't tell me turkey. don't do it. >> turkey. >> cenk: you know what you guys win. fine, i will allow women on the front lines. are you happy now? exact, you're on the front lines of the "the young turks" as we speak. and they won. all right, what are you going to

do. michael, ana, jayar, jimmy check out the jimmy dore show. shana, thank you for joining us today. here's what i need you to do, have an awesome memorial day weekend, and we'll see you soon, "the young turks." ♪ >> eliot: good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is "viewpoint." in an election where the unemployment rate could decide the presidency, it's all about the numbers. right now unemployment's at 8.1% down a full point in less than a year but still way too high. though mitt romney insisted wednesday he could fix that. >> over a period of four years by virtue of the policies that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6% or a little lower