Chris Wallace is a Democrat. He is speaking opinion. Ted Kennedy was a drunken out of control demigod. He ran around demanding everyone pay taxes and hid his money overseas. He was a first class hypocrite and deserved to go to prison for murdering that woman. You Democrats are always saying conservatives are making political hay of supreme court nominee's, talk about the pot and kettle.Our nominee's are constitutional scholars and yours are lefty hacks who spit on the constitution.Bid difference
@Patriot751 Is demigod supposed to be an insult? What, you think he was the son of Zeus or something? Or are you going by the highly honored and revered definition? Either way, it doesn't make sense.And OUR candidates spit on the constitution? That is why the ACLU is considered liberal, right? 'Cause we liberals HATE constitutional rights. What constitutional rights do the conservatives defend? Oh, right. The NRA is all over the most important right.
Bork opposed segregation, on his wiki he has an excellent passage on why "separate but equal" was a bad doctrine and how the Brown vs. Board decision was the correct one. So Ted Kennedy was wrong on that.
I also don't like the "back-alley abortion" thing: just because things occur on the black market doesn't mean they should be legalised. Assassinations are carried out in the back alley, doesn't make them moral. I'm a little mixed though, I don't mind abortion before the CNS develops.
@gamerunknown It is better to legalize and regulate something, so long as it isn't terribly immoral. And we can decide where to draw the line (no-one is in favor of late-term abortions, unless there are very good reasons). Also, just because someone's wiki says something now doesn't mean that that person believed those things, or would have acted on those beliefs.
I suppose I was just playing the devil's advocate. It's strange though, Bork was at least apologetic, there's a whole group (Mises, Ron Paul) that still opposes civil rights.
While no Fox News fan by any stretch - the assessment there was spot on. Kennedy's attack on Bork was largely inaccurate or - at best - incomplete. Bork was UNQUESTIONABLY qualified to sit on the Court. Had he been confirmed, Bork and Scalia would have reasoned many cases the same - and, despite what the vast legion of critics might say, Justice Scalia is among the most capable jurists this country has ever seen. ELECTIONS MATTER - and capable nominees should be confirmed regardless of ideology.
The democrats and liberals are whats wrong with this country.Why do they want to kill babies.and if you don't kill your child they want to tell you how to raise your child.What kind of people do this?Evil!!!
A Supreme Court Justice should only be judged on their qualifications. Since their ideology should never influence their decisions, we shouldn't be asking them questions about their ideology. It is not their job to impart their personal beliefs onto the nation, it is their job to ensure that The Constitution of the USA is upheld for everyone on American soil. They should not be giving us religious bullshit with their rulings, just the law.
It is a combination of increased media coverage and our FPTP election system that causes the extreme politicization of the process. The Supreme Court should be a non partisan body that rules strictly on the constitutionality of new laws. As such, I believe anyone with 'radical' views should be barred. This includes both the Right and the Left. Until we move to a proportional representation system political squabbling will occupy more time than real progress.
You can't blame one group over the other for "politicizing" the process. Both sides of the aisle will be to blame for politicizing everything in this country. If you want to blame someone for Bork, you can't pick anyone else but Reagan. If you want to blame someone for still pointing fingers 24 years after the fact, blame the Dem's.
You can't blame one group over the other for "politicizing" the process. Both sides of the aisle will be to blame for politicizing everything in this country. If you want to blame someone for Bork, you can't pick anyone else but Reagan. If you want to blame someone for still pointing fingers 24 years after the fact, blame the Dem's.
@PaulinaPaulino Yes, but now a days the Dems are blamed for screaming. Fox and GOP talking points do this so much and so effectively they have the Dems against the ropes. They coward away silently in the corner most of the time. That leaves Fox as the dominant voice for the people and the Dems without any discernible voice at all. And then Fox comes in for the second round not only lets us know how to think but how to feel.
@PaulinaPaulino You can't go blaming RonnieRay, patron saint of political Teflon. I'm surprised that the rightwingnuts haven't tried to replace Lincoln's face on Mt Rushmore with that of their favorite all-American deity.
Bork told the truth. Sotomayor lied when she said she supported the 2nd amendment. I think there is more than enough blame for both the Demoncrats, and Repuklicans on this one. Sotomayor's confirmation hearings of how you will never get the truth out of a nomine again.
This shows your liberal insanity. Robert Bork bravely spoke to the illiterate democrat senators about so many topics related to the constitution. Unlike partisan hacks like Sotomayor and Hagan, Bork did not exercise his right to remain silence and for 4 days Bork delighted the senate with an advanced seminar on constitutional law. That will never ever be seen in court nomination hearings. Today we have a bunch of losers, public relation talkers, incompetent hacks chosen.
Americans let the republicans have their way on everything. Even after 8 yrs of total control with the US on it's knees in many ways they're still listening to the republicans, yes even despite the record. America is bush country, it belongs to the conservative right and that isn't good. But it's so.
Bork also showed a lack of integrity. He publicly stated that he believed Nixon had the right to order the firing of Archibald Cox (the famous "Saturday Night Massacre").
How would conservatives have felt if Clinton had ordered Janet Reno to fire Ken Starr?
ELENA KAGAN LOOKS LIKE SHE JUST SUCKED THE SHIT OUT OF HE DIKE LOVERS ASSHOLE!!! MAN THAT BITCH IS UGLY!!! YOU JUST CAN'T TRUST A BITCH THAT DAMN UGLY!!! IT'S NO DOUBT SHE HAS REVENGE ON HER MIND!!! WHO CARES IF ANYONE BASHES TED KENNEDY HE WAS JUST ANOTHER SCUM LIBERAL WHO WAS NEVER WORTH THE FLESH HE WAS MADE OF!!!!
@Madcat151 Do you really believe anybody, simply because of a ideology, should be put into a mental institution and medicated? You do realize how Fascist that sounds right?
I find your assessment astonishing. Not only was Kennedy's speech COMPLETELY untrue (and he knew it), the Democrats digging into his private life was unacceptable (video rentals, really?)
Chris Wallace was 100% accurate with his assessment of his qualification to the Supreme Court bench. He is a legal scholar to the highest degree. Democrats knew they could not reject him on his qualifications, so they resorted to a political hit job (aka "Borked"). Shameful!
@insuranator Nobody ever said he didn't understand law. Kennedy said that Bork was a neo-con. You can have a conservative but not someone that radical. Bork is a segregationst who wanted to turn back the clock. That's not a good look.
@insuranator Watch - the - whole - video - please ; it was about the beginnings of an attempt by the Reagan Righteous to overturn Roe vs Wade by stacking the Supreme Court.
Kagen should be "borked", unfortunately there aren't any senator/murderers (TK) willing to step up to the plate and try and save America from the endless plume of perversion and corruption emanating from DC.
I find myself watching MSNBC more than I do Fox News becasue they like to 'play' with editing what people say. In 2005, I watched a tape of Bush explaining the siruarion in Iraq. Believe it or not, I got the full excerpt from Al Jazeera?
Chis Mattews, just let people talk! God, he's windy with himeslf!
Reagan deliberately nominated Bork for polirics, but look at Rosevelt! "Packing' the Supreme Court is nothing new.
LV, I hate Fox News just as much as you do, but why don't you at least try to be fair and nonpartisan and hold DEMOCRATS and liberals on TV, like that jackass Chris Matthews or that smug fuck Keith Olbermann, accountable when they say stupid stuff?? And I've seen plenty broadcasts where they have said stupid stuff. MSNBC can be pretty bad, too, ya know. But you only seem to go after Fox. why??? Don't tell me you think Fox is all bad, and msnbc is totally good?
Judges were never 'Borked' before Bork because in the Supreme Court, Judges could only 'enforce' the laws passed by Congress (with few exceptions) up until Roe. Roe overturned thousands of laws on killing the unborn. Laws that the people had agreed to via elected officials - Roe overturned all those laws with a pen stroke. Now Judges can redefine what certain laws "mean" by changing words. See "New London"
Regarding Kennedy - his letter to Andropov really is disappointing.
Politics have *always* been a part of the supreme court. The difference is how public those political maneuvers are.
The supreme court is the single most powerful entity in the United States. It is far, *FAR* more powerful than the President or Congress. It is only natural that the most influential branch and office should be hard fought over.
Political philosophy, judicial philosophy, and societal shaping takes place there. It is only surprising we have done it without blood.
@QuasiEvilScott - and it was designed for the just the opposite - to have NO POWER WHATSOEVER - it could 'ONLY ENFORCE' the laws passed by CONGRESS.
Now the court picks and chooses what interpretations it feels it can get away with to wholly change laws on the books, laws that representatives 'we elect' have written and agreed to.
@FreeAgain2 I dont much care what it was "designed for" - this is how it turned out. I like what it's become. I dont much trust the "people." Granted, democracy is the least bad form of government thus far, but that's only because all other incarnations are worse.
The hard thought eloquent musings of the philosophical elite tempering and making it's best edits of how society should be defined is much preferred to the demography that could be. Beware platitudes, they are fickle mistresses.
The whole house of cards is now teetering with the worst possible president leading the way. Not only is the worst possible president leading the way, the worst possible president is the architect of all it is
@stpkeaton Democrats are funded by the Auto industry, pretty much only americans buy american made vehicals, thus the Auto industry desires a working class capable of affording their rather costly product, & thus the democrats have a rational reason to support a working class capable of affording cars. Ergo the Democrats will work for the common man to an extent. There is no rational reason for the Republicans to support the working class. Remember that when you vote in November.
@stpkeaton lol...you insani-tea baggin party freaks are making it possible for the democrats to keep a large majority in both houses...lmao...there are not enough racists to support all of your racist rhetoric and candidates...
Liberalviewer needs to get a grip. Ted said Bork was a racist, school kids not being taught about what they are not taught today, And women are forced into back ally abortions. That was within 45 minutes. Those are your findings Liberalviewer? But you complain about the republicans? OK I don't get it.
@jimisback thats because you don't want to get it...bork was a well known racist...the modern republican / insani-tea baggin party are full of them...you all feel that if you are white then you are "unamerican", if your name doesn't originate from europe then you are "unamerican", if you are not christian then you are "unamerican". "unamerican" is the new "n-word". 23days after obama takes office, tea bag republicans chant "i want my country back". lol, why, becuz the president is "unamerican"
Total leftist control of the media is dead! Bork was politicized by the leftist controled US media. That was in 1987. Fox showed up around 1996. This is the crux of leftist hate of FOX. They have lost control of media and thus can no longer manipulate.
Kagan's nothing but a liberal socialist rubberstamp sent to be Obama's troll,sent to undermine our constitution as it is written.She's never served on a court and has no actual judicial experience.But most limp-noodle Libby socialist believe the constitution is a forever changing document to be changed willy-nilly to fit their narrow-minded ideology of what should be fair and yea! lest we forget,diversity! diversity!Robert Bork was more than qualified and should have been confirmed!
@dog64 There is the right to privacy. Theres also the fact that 73& of Americans agree with the decision, so how about this we put it up for a national vote, if you win abortion is outlawed, if we win you people shut up, deal? Also the was nearly 4 decades ago it's no longer a liberal position.
@Fuctmentality No, they did not win in 2000. I doubt you would shut up if it were outlawed. The right to privacy does not extend to taking life in private. Now we both know where each other stands and I know neither will change their view.
@dog64 "No, they did not win in 2000. " Yes they did, check for yourself." I doubt you would shut up if it were outlawed" Never said I would, Of course you wouldn't shut up after you lost either. "The right to privacy does not extend to taking life" The supreme court & 73% of Americans disagree.
@Fuctmentality Whats percentage have to do with right and wrong? That's the thrust of my argument. Dred Scott didn't last either. Not making a comparison other than "percentages". The SC made law through the bench on that one because it would never pass any other way, that's my other point. They had to bypass the will of the people which is ok with liberals as long as it fits their view.
@dog64 "Whats percentage have to do with right and wrong?"
No ones discussing right & wrong my friend. Why did you post "percentages" in quotation marks? For that matter can you write a complete version of that sentences what is not not making comparisons?
"They had to bypass the will of the people" From what I can gather the majority of people were in favor of roe v wade, when it was first passed, & most people don't agree with legal decisions they are against on non-legal grounds.
@dog64 there is no right in our constitution banning it either.. each state has the power to ban it. and yet the christian conservative states, texas, arizona, geogria, all have yet to even put forth legislation stemming the use of abortion.. even better no republican president has ever even put pressure on states to ban it.. EVEN BETTER the first state to allow abortions was California in 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Act (under Ronald Reagan).. if you dont believe me look it upup..
You should try arguing FOR your opposition long enough to equalize your own biases... it is clear you have been relegated to politicizing the politicizing.
You can clearly tell the right began publicizing supreme court nominations not just by history, but by their arguments every time a justice is to be appointed. They comb the records of all slightly liberal nominees and politicize ideology when ideology has no place on the supreme court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution through historical context and litteral interpritations to apply to modern law.
I love how LiberalViewer labels MSN as merely opinion but regards FOX's opinions as purposely manipulative. Typical liberal there, at least in my experience. There is nothing wrong with being liberal or conservative on face, but unfortunately I have met many more liberals (especially my age) than conservatives who truly have no idea why they are whatever it is they are. And if I must state this again, this is my experience. So if I get a reply saying 'You're generalizing" I will reply, "I know"
@mtb416 You said: "I love how LiberalViewer labels MSN as merely opinion but regards FOX's opinions as purposely manipulative." It's not that MSNBC was labelled as "merely" opinion, LV's point was that the opinion show provided facts, backed up by video, to provide historical context to the discussion. Whereas, Fox's show which is supposed to be straight news, didn't.
And why I'm a liberal: Democracy is a LIBERAL idea. The US is born from the liberal ideals.
@dytada First, you're working with from the start, so how could you possibly arrive at a proper conclusion? "Fox's show which is suppose to be straight news" - Tell me dytakeda, please, where in this world can I find 'straight news'?
About Democracy and ''liberal', you act as if I am painting the latter very poorly. I most certainly am not and this is just an assumption on your part. Having said that, I will say Todays "liberals" do very little justice of what the term really means, IMO
@mtb416 - You started the conversation with the complaint about labels for Fox's show and MSNBC's show. I didn't say Fox's show is straight news, I said it's "supposed to be" straight news because that's how Fox labels it.
Regarding being a "liberal", again you said that many more liberals than conservatives have no idea why they are so. By stating such, you are painting liberals poorly... as thoughtless. I'm just telling you why I am the thoughtful liberal I am.
@dytakeda Why do you keep stating my generalization about liberals? I intentionally did so in the beginning, all the while implying the understanding that I am aware I am doing so, and then explicitly stated I am aware of that after you expressed a criticism of me doing it, and now you continue to state it as if I am unaware of what I have done. Do you need a third agreement on my part to make you believe I am aware of my own actions?
And anyways, I NEVER said you could not be thoughtful.
@mtb416 You said that I was acting as if you were painting liberals poorly. I was just stating why I did that, i.e., you saying that many more liberals than conservatives have no idea why they are so. If you were aware of your own actions, then why are you surprised that I would react negatively?
@dytakeda Fox labels itself as such because we live in a market-driven economy. CNN and MSN do the EXACT the same thing Fox does but through different means. But because you do often disagree with Fox's POV and because they simply state, for marketing purposes, "Fair and Balanced." you feel further convicted in your attacks on them- Perhaps Fox does think they are fair & balanced, who are you to say otherwise? Apparently you're the type of person who can also say MY OWN experiences are wrong
@mtb416 I think you missed the point of LV's original statement. It's got nothing to do with a marketing slogan. Some shows are supposed to be straight news, others are opinion shows. Just like a newspaper. Some sections are news, and others are editorials. His original statement had to do with more facts and information, i.e., news, coming from the MSNBC opinion show than from the Fox news show. You're trying to spin it by calling it a "typical liberal" move.
I love to see liberals so mad at FOX NEWS. It makes me like it even more! If must kill you that FOX news is the highest rated cable news network. Does it? Hurt I mean1 hahahahhaaaaah. Can't stop laughing at you!
@Muzzy337 I'm not sure, but I think GSK is currently doing Phase I studies on a pill that curbs closed-minded judgmental-ism over time. And with health insurance changes, and the potential lower costs on drugs forthcoming, perhaps by the time it's fully FDA approved, pharmacies can attend NASCAR events all around the Midwest and hand them out to all of those backwards rednecks.
I remember the Bork hearings. I remember a very conservative co-worker rejecting Bork when she heard the man defend his view that there is no right to privacy in the constitution and government has the right to outlaw contraception. My Senator, Chuck Grassley, said at the time the job of the Senate was merely to determine if a nominee was qualified. He changed his tune when the nominee csme from a Democratic president.
You have no idea how many of the world media is already using their footage as a postcard for American conservatism and ignorance. Instead of showing us how America is healing from the crisis we just see footage of these racist tea parties and dirty politics from mostly one side.
@Devil7414 YOU HAVE MADE A VERY POOR DECISION. WHY GO TO THE ONES WHO DIDN'T WANT HEALTHCARE THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENCE AT ALL . PLUS THE REPUPLICANS ARE DEVILS. SO YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE REPUBLICANS MORE FOR NOT THE BILL TO PASS NOT THE DEMOCRATS. THINGS JUST DON'T HAPPEN OVER NIGHT .
LOL.... Liberals are dumb as rocks! I listen to this with total amusement. Rove trashed Kennedy? LOL As if Kennedy never trashed anyone eh? Including Robert Bork which Rove mentioned. I'll admit I will never understand the wiring of a liberal mind which I thank god for. Ted Kennedy was a jackass who killed Mary Jo and could never hold water (no pun) to his brother John, who actually did positive things for this country. Ted did nothing but wreck it.
I think abortion is both legal and moral, and object only to somebody suggesting that it is illegal (which is implied by calling an abortionist a murderer, since murder is an unlawful killing by definition) because the legality of the act is not subjective, very much unlike the issue of whether it's morally correct.
@ProjectCheck You can think whatever you want. That does not make it so. Killing an unborn child simply for a woman's convenience is immoral. The fact that it was made legal is the only thing standing between the moral people of this society and those who kill children for a living. I guess you would not have a problem then with a society that decides to kill gay people.
@CommonSenseJoe; Well, let's compare a fetus to a homosexual. One is a fetus, which doesn't entitle it to any rights, the other is an animal, a person, a human, a citizen, with just as many rights as the rest of us. So, no, I wouldn't condone the systematic killing of gay people.
.
"Person" refers to the human body, and "People" are humans who have bodies. If you're not a human, you cannot be considered a person, ergo fetuses are not people. Willful ignorance of SIMPLE logic is not an argument.
not caring about policy and caring about judicial philosophy is the definition of not politicizing the appointment of judicial appointees.
How dare u suggest that by not saying both parties politicize the hearings they are picking sides, it is abhorent to you that one side could be responsible?
Kenney is adding politics to matters of judicial consideration when politicizing appointee processes.
@Loathomar I see your point, but what I meant to say is that for a supreme court judge the only opinion that matters is what the original founders intended and the intention of the amendments. The person's personal opinion doesn't matter. The reason is that you can think of the Constitution as a contract, kind of, or an agreement, where the federal government is told what they can and can't do. If the agreement keeps on changing whenever a judge doesn't like it, the Constitution is not reliable
@Dustman3400 Obviously, the founders couldn't imagine everything, which is why we can amend the Constitution. But it was meant to be difficult. Allowing the supreme court to vote for or against something because of what they think the government should be able to do, gives that branch too much power. The Constitution was intended to separate powers to ensure that small groups of people have too much power, and control the shots. The Constitution should not be able to be changed easily.
Your watching the Liberalviewers channel and you cant find any video where Fox lies? Have you even tried to just search "fox lies" in hes channel, or youtube for that matter?
They are omitting facts they know are critical to the story and willingly twists there "understanding" of the facts, even when they really know whats what, just to push there agenda. Its propaganda and propaganda is basically lying.
If its not, then I guess Joseph Gobbles didnt lie ether...
(A) The systematic effort of controlling public opinion or a course of action by using selected facts, ideas or allegations. (B) Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
Thats the definition, now tell me thats not Fox and I can tell you that youre ether blind or lying.
He also felt that there was no basis for the "privacy" right as used in the Roe v. Wade decision. He did say that it could possibly be found in the 9th amendment but that was never considered by the Warren court in it's Roe decision. There was a lot of distortion of Bork's views and his actual judicial record could was not criticized so much as his earlier academic articles. This has caused Presidents to no longer nominate jurists with a paper trail and those with an academic background.
What Ted Kennedy said on the floor of the Senate was not merely a refutation of Bork's judicial philosophy but a complete distortion of his views to discredit him as a human being and not simply as a jurist. At the time the attacks mostly centered on Robert Bork's academic writings that were not politically correct. He had written many years previously that Taney might have been correct in his reasoning regarding portions of the Dred Scott decision as it was before the 13th - 15th amendments.
I believed Bork described himself as an "Originalist," in the mode of Justices Scalia and Thomas. I find the very concept to be pretentious - as if anyone could know exactly what was in the minds of the Framers. Parts of the Constitution were written as vague compromises to ensure ratification when the Framers themselves could not reach agreement. Furthermore, Bork's own behavior - before and after the hearing and on the DC Circuit Court show him to be a reactionary activist.
If you look at Bork's wiki page, he seems to be depicted as having a doctine of "original intent" rather than "legislating from the bench". He clearly was conservative and is most definitely anti-abortion. I've seen one of his speeches along those lines.
My apologies to projectcheck. The comments were a bit confusing but I think it's commonsensejoe to whom my responses were directed. Common sense? More like uncommon sense! LOL Anyone know why there is a "FREE NEWT" add in the righthand corner of this webpage? Didn't know he was in jail. What took so long?
Projectcheck! Lastly, - know that you can never again put someone on the rack, burn at the stake or throw into a dungeon or cell any woman who choses to end her pregnancy. You may stand on your soap box and damn those who disagree with you until doomsday, nothing more, so rant on. We are impervious to your uncommon sense and we are not going back to pre-Roe barbarism.
Projectcheck! Additionally, until that proverbial unbilical cord is cut, it will always be the right of the woman not any man to chose what she will do with her own body. As usual you typlify the neoconservative fundamentalist Christian foaming and frothing at the mouth beating your chest and as fear monger damning to hell those who disagree with you.
Projectcheck! Tthe legal medical procedure you call "abortion" is a legal one that has nothing to do with your Judeo-Christian "reality" dogma. "Murder" has a very clear and defined definition and abortion is not murder, nor is a fetus a "child" by any definition. By the way - great video - Bork was a nutcase!
@jereuter01 When was he or she NOT a child? What medical fact changed as a result of Roe vs. Wade? The issue was whether the child had rights, not whether he or she had life.
Humans, like all other animals, are characterized by voluntary movement. Lifeforms without voluntary movement aren't considered animals, and something that cannot be considered an animal [i.e. fetuses] cannot be considered human, because humans are animals.
By your definition, people who have been rendered in a vegetative state are not animals.
This is clearly wrong. Maybe if you knew that animals are generally classified as organisms that gather nutrients through some form of ingestion, and that anything descended from an animal, is still an animal, regardless of what stage of development it is in, you wouldn't have made such a grievous error.
Yes, and by your "general" definition of anything that gathers nutrients to ingest, even plants could be called animals. My main studies are in literature, and I'm having a hard time finding a definition of "animal" that doesn't mention voluntary movement.
.
You say that anything descended from an animal is still an animal—have you anything to support this claim beyond asserting it as fact?
Oh, and your attempt to falsify my definition of 'animal' was daft. You started by forming an appeal to ridicule fallacy (Google it) and then proceeded to not explain by any means why somebody in a vegetative state should still be considered an animal, considering they're lacking the characteristic by which we distinguish animals from generic lifeforms.
.
You instead just stated that the idea of them being non-animals is "clearly wrong," as if clarity isn't completely subjective.
@ProjectCheck I am not the one with the problem. You have attempting to justify murdering an unborn child with word games. An unborn child is live. This is not my opinion. It is a medical and legal fact. The only issue is why you think they should be killed.
No Joe, I never tried to justify anything. I've said that multiple times. I pointed out the factual inaccuracy in describing abortion (where it's legal) as murder, because murder denotes an unlawful act. There's no point in taking issue with me for pointing out the obvious.
.
Abortion is legal during the first trimester, before the fetus is viable (meaning it can survive outside the uterus). Until viable, it's not considered a person of its own.
@ProjectCheck I still believe it is murder because there is no justification for killing an innocent child. Viability is not how we determine life either. We are killing children well into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. If I determine that those with dark skin are not "a person" based on the color of their skin, is it no less murder to kill them if I convince the government to sanction it?
Yes, if you lawfully kill somebody, you're not a murderer. This seriously shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.
.
Viability isn't supposed to determine whether it's alive, because just being alive doesn't suddenly grant it rights. It's not a person until it can survive outside the uterus, and it's not an animal (ergo not a human) until it can move voluntarily. The latter usually doesn't happen until the third trimester, at which point the state can prohibit the abortion.
@ProjectCheck I understand your strictness of definition in a legal sense, but I am looking at it from a moral sense. I wish you applied the same standard to your definition of life. Yes, it regard to humans, life always granted rights until the Supreme Court determined otherwise. A unborn infant can and does move of it's own accord long before the third trimester. The child is alive the moment he or she is imparted in the wall of uterus. He or she has a separate DNA from their mother.
Murder is a legal term. I never said that laws dictate morality. Just that abortion isn't illegal and ergo not murder. The only reason life doesn't grant a fetus rights is because it's not a human, and it's not a person. There's nothing that makes the fetus any more deserving of rights than a common house fly. It's a potential human, sure, but so is semen, and I don't think we should charge anybody who masturbates as a murderer.
Oh, and it's not an issue of whether an unborn infant (which is an oxymoron used intentionally to make a non-human fetus seem more important) can move at all, it's whether it can move voluntarily, and to do something voluntarily requires intention, which fetuses are not capable of. For example, sunflowers will turn to face the sun, but that doesn't make them animals—they're still plants, and fetuses are still fetuses.
@ProjectCheck Now you are hiding behind the term "fetus". We all know we are talking about an unborn child. Try explaining that logic to a woman who WANTS the child she is carrying. You look at an ultrasound, and you see a child. The value of a person's life should not be determine by their mother. How do you know the child does not have "intention"? The child feels pain and reacts to outside stimuli. Denying life on an arbitrarily drawn line does not make it right or moral.
I use the term "fetus" because it's the most correct; I'm in no way hiding behind it. The term "unborn child" is inherently incorrect and patently impossible. It's an internal contradiction, and is no more feasible than a living corpse, or a progressive conservative.
.
Committing constant category mistakes doesn't constitute an argument. She's not a mother until the child is born, it's a fetus you see on the ultrasound (not a child), and most importantly, fetuses are NOT PEOPLE.
@ProjectCheck Sure you are. The term was never used before Roe Vs Wade. We all know it is a child. Have you ever heard the phrase, "she is with child"? No one says, "How old is your fetus?" Calling the child a fetus dehumanizes them. However, it does not change the fact that abortion is killing a child. Every woman who is pregnant and wants the child is a mother. I don't know what to call those who kill their own babies.
@CommonSenseJoe; The term 'fetus' has been used since the 1500s, and common speech of "How old is the baby?" (which is what I've heard, NEVER 'How old is your child?' etc.) doesn't make it correct. Yeah, calling it a fetus does dehumanize it, and rightfully so considering IT'S NOT A HUMAN.
.
Abortion is not killing a child because it's not a child until it's born, & Pregnant women only gain the title of 'mother' AFTER they give birth. Are you just trying to make as many mistakes as possible?
@ProjectCheck The child is human. The child is alive. You can try to cover up your complicity in the killing with word games but it just won't wash. When a woman is pregnant, she is a mother. If she miscarriages, she loses a child, a person, and a life. The only difference between her and the woman who terminates her child's life is their attitude towards the child. It is your own flaw logic that you have a problem with me, not me.
So your strategy is as follows: state something that is inherently and patently incorrect, cover it with emotional appears, and then claim anybody who corrects you is playing a 'word game'.
.
Sorry, no, you're the one playing a word game trying to make fetuses seem more important than they actually are by INCORRECTLY referring to them as unborn children, as people, and as humans, NONE OF WHICH they actually are. It's petty and if you had any self-respect you'd cut it out.
@ProjectCheck I won't by into your own delusion. We are talking about an unborn child. It is absolutely correct to do so. You know I am right. They are human. You can draw all kinds of lines and make up your own definition all you want. Facts are facts. Once that fertilized egg implants, he or she is a separate person with a different DNA. They are the result of ACTIONS taken by the woman who now carries the child. You cannot change these uncomfortable facts. The emotion is REAL.
You aren't one to talk about facts, considering you're completely oblivious to them. You've demonstrated for the umpteenth time that your name is a terrible misnomer because you are void of all common sense, let alone any sense at all.
.
You use terms like "unborn child" as an emotional appeal because your thought process doesn't involve logic (the alternative to emotion). You're implying that I'm delusional for using the correct definitions? You're a JOKE. Get out of here.
@ProjectCheck You are inventing your own definitions. For the umpteenth time, we are talking about a child, a person, and human being. There is basis for drawing a line here or there. You are the joke because you know you are wrong, but cannot handle the reality that over a million people are DEAD because of your thinking.
I'm talking about ACTUAL definitions. You're the one who's making up your own, and you'd know that had you have read a dictionary at some point in your lifetime. You have no respect for literacy, you just use whatever words you want to, however you want to, and pretend that I'm doing something wrong by pointing out your obvious errors.
.
Not a single person has died because of abortion. In fact, abortion has saved many people from death. I'm sure you'll deny that too.
@ProjectCheck Laws do dictate morality. They are based on morality. I just think hiding behind legal terminology is cowardice. Be that as it may, you are still dodging the issue with terminology. The unborn child is a person. Semen is NOT a life because it will not ever become anything other than semen. Masturbating is not the same as killing a child in the womb. The Supreme Court removed the right of life from the unborn child for nothing more than the convenience of a woman.
@CommonSenseJoe Just because something is against the law doesn't make it immoral and just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Laws do NOT dictate morality.
.
You're the one who used legal terminology by calling abortionists murderers. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of common sense when they decided that a fetus doesn't have rights. 'Pro-life' is just republican code for 'anti-freedom', fetuses aren't people and therefore have no rights.
@~cont. "Masturbating is not the same as killing a child in the womb."
If it's still in the womb, then it's not a child. Fetuses are no more people, animals, humans, or citizens than all the semen that is wasted whenever somebody masturbates. That was the purpose of the comparison.
@ProjectCheck Only according to you! Unborn babies are people. They are persons who until Roe v. Wade had the right to life. Funny how liberals fight for gay rights and civil rights, but not the right to life.
Thank you for posting this, LiberalViewer.
writersblock26 3 months ago 2
Chris Wallace is a Democrat. He is speaking opinion. Ted Kennedy was a drunken out of control demigod. He ran around demanding everyone pay taxes and hid his money overseas. He was a first class hypocrite and deserved to go to prison for murdering that woman. You Democrats are always saying conservatives are making political hay of supreme court nominee's, talk about the pot and kettle.Our nominee's are constitutional scholars and yours are lefty hacks who spit on the constitution.Bid difference
Patriot751 3 months ago
@Patriot751 Is demigod supposed to be an insult? What, you think he was the son of Zeus or something? Or are you going by the highly honored and revered definition? Either way, it doesn't make sense.And OUR candidates spit on the constitution? That is why the ACLU is considered liberal, right? 'Cause we liberals HATE constitutional rights. What constitutional rights do the conservatives defend? Oh, right. The NRA is all over the most important right.
SelectHawk 1 week ago
Bork opposed segregation, on his wiki he has an excellent passage on why "separate but equal" was a bad doctrine and how the Brown vs. Board decision was the correct one. So Ted Kennedy was wrong on that.
I also don't like the "back-alley abortion" thing: just because things occur on the black market doesn't mean they should be legalised. Assassinations are carried out in the back alley, doesn't make them moral. I'm a little mixed though, I don't mind abortion before the CNS develops.
gamerunknown 4 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@gamerunknown It is better to legalize and regulate something, so long as it isn't terribly immoral. And we can decide where to draw the line (no-one is in favor of late-term abortions, unless there are very good reasons). Also, just because someone's wiki says something now doesn't mean that that person believed those things, or would have acted on those beliefs.
SelectHawk 1 week ago
@SelectHawk
I suppose I was just playing the devil's advocate. It's strange though, Bork was at least apologetic, there's a whole group (Mises, Ron Paul) that still opposes civil rights.
gamerunknown 1 week ago
While no Fox News fan by any stretch - the assessment there was spot on. Kennedy's attack on Bork was largely inaccurate or - at best - incomplete. Bork was UNQUESTIONABLY qualified to sit on the Court. Had he been confirmed, Bork and Scalia would have reasoned many cases the same - and, despite what the vast legion of critics might say, Justice Scalia is among the most capable jurists this country has ever seen. ELECTIONS MATTER - and capable nominees should be confirmed regardless of ideology.
jpsartrean 6 months ago
That abstinence from giving his own desires free play, that continuing and self-conscious renunciation of power, that is the morality of the jurist.
- Robert Bork
TheNotebartello 8 months ago
The democrats and liberals are whats wrong with this country.Why do they want to kill babies.and if you don't kill your child they want to tell you how to raise your child.What kind of people do this?Evil!!!
bcomber38 8 months ago
YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE RULES OF A GAME IN ORDER TO WIN SAID GAME
FiveHundo500 8 months ago
A Supreme Court Justice should only be judged on their qualifications. Since their ideology should never influence their decisions, we shouldn't be asking them questions about their ideology. It is not their job to impart their personal beliefs onto the nation, it is their job to ensure that The Constitution of the USA is upheld for everyone on American soil. They should not be giving us religious bullshit with their rulings, just the law.
WowUrFcknHxC 9 months ago
The Supreme Court is a powerful body, with lifetime appointments, and, as Lord Acton said, power corrupts so the process should be comprehensive.
bannor99 9 months ago
"Supposed straight" news program on Fox? That's a great description, much like the "supposed straight" Ted Haggard
bannor99 9 months ago
It is a combination of increased media coverage and our FPTP election system that causes the extreme politicization of the process. The Supreme Court should be a non partisan body that rules strictly on the constitutionality of new laws. As such, I believe anyone with 'radical' views should be barred. This includes both the Right and the Left. Until we move to a proportional representation system political squabbling will occupy more time than real progress.
samugaag 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't blame one group over the other for "politicizing" the process. Both sides of the aisle will be to blame for politicizing everything in this country. If you want to blame someone for Bork, you can't pick anyone else but Reagan. If you want to blame someone for still pointing fingers 24 years after the fact, blame the Dem's.
grimmny 11 months ago
You can't blame one group over the other for "politicizing" the process. Both sides of the aisle will be to blame for politicizing everything in this country. If you want to blame someone for Bork, you can't pick anyone else but Reagan. If you want to blame someone for still pointing fingers 24 years after the fact, blame the Dem's.
grimmny 11 months ago
In typical GOP fashion, Reagan threw a live hand grenade into the judicial ring with the nomination of Bork.
In typical DEM fashion, Kennedy screamed to all that would hear that a grenade was on the floor.
In typical GOP fashion, the GOP then blamed the Democrats for the explosion.
PaulinaPaulino 11 months ago 2
@PaulinaPaulino Yes, but now a days the Dems are blamed for screaming. Fox and GOP talking points do this so much and so effectively they have the Dems against the ropes. They coward away silently in the corner most of the time. That leaves Fox as the dominant voice for the people and the Dems without any discernible voice at all. And then Fox comes in for the second round not only lets us know how to think but how to feel.
TheReasonTroll 11 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino You can't go blaming RonnieRay, patron saint of political Teflon. I'm surprised that the rightwingnuts haven't tried to replace Lincoln's face on Mt Rushmore with that of their favorite all-American deity.
bannor99 8 months ago
Bork told the truth. Sotomayor lied when she said she supported the 2nd amendment. I think there is more than enough blame for both the Demoncrats, and Repuklicans on this one. Sotomayor's confirmation hearings of how you will never get the truth out of a nomine again.
TXVETJEB 11 months ago
because they are women or minorities.
apocalipsis82 11 months ago
This shows your liberal insanity. Robert Bork bravely spoke to the illiterate democrat senators about so many topics related to the constitution. Unlike partisan hacks like Sotomayor and Hagan, Bork did not exercise his right to remain silence and for 4 days Bork delighted the senate with an advanced seminar on constitutional law. That will never ever be seen in court nomination hearings. Today we have a bunch of losers, public relation talkers, incompetent hacks chosen.
apocalipsis82 11 months ago
doo do do do doooo do do do do do BORK BORK BORK!
the1tigglet 1 year ago
MADCOW............... Fox straight news?
uratrick 1 year ago
MADCOW
uratrick 1 year ago
Americans let the republicans have their way on everything. Even after 8 yrs of total control with the US on it's knees in many ways they're still listening to the republicans, yes even despite the record. America is bush country, it belongs to the conservative right and that isn't good. But it's so.
scotty 1 year ago
gotta ask about there idealogical thoughts, make sure they are unbiased and true to the Constitution as possible.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
Bork also showed a lack of integrity. He publicly stated that he believed Nixon had the right to order the firing of Archibald Cox (the famous "Saturday Night Massacre").
How would conservatives have felt if Clinton had ordered Janet Reno to fire Ken Starr?
Gordo1108 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ELENA KAGAN LOOKS LIKE SHE JUST SUCKED THE SHIT OUT OF HE DIKE LOVERS ASSHOLE!!! MAN THAT BITCH IS UGLY!!! YOU JUST CAN'T TRUST A BITCH THAT DAMN UGLY!!! IT'S NO DOUBT SHE HAS REVENGE ON HER MIND!!! WHO CARES IF ANYONE BASHES TED KENNEDY HE WAS JUST ANOTHER SCUM LIBERAL WHO WAS NEVER WORTH THE FLESH HE WAS MADE OF!!!!
guns185 1 year ago
@guns185
your caps lock is on...oh, and youre a fuckin moron.
bushhater99 1 year ago
All your video says is "I didn't like what I heard on Fox, so I turned to MSNBC."
guyjohn59 1 year ago
it says "fox news is a fucking disgrace and about as fair and balanced as the kkk"
......so i turned to MSNBC
Dreamerx47 1 year ago
@Dreamerx47 you will learn much more about the KKK at MSNBC. Good luck in life being misinformed.
kknepple 1 year ago
liberal derangement knows no bounds now to bad they cant be rounded up and put into mental institutions and medicated.
Madcat151 1 year ago
@Madcat151 Do you really believe anybody, simply because of a ideology, should be put into a mental institution and medicated? You do realize how Fascist that sounds right?
TheHerbulator 1 year ago
I find your assessment astonishing. Not only was Kennedy's speech COMPLETELY untrue (and he knew it), the Democrats digging into his private life was unacceptable (video rentals, really?)
Chris Wallace was 100% accurate with his assessment of his qualification to the Supreme Court bench. He is a legal scholar to the highest degree. Democrats knew they could not reject him on his qualifications, so they resorted to a political hit job (aka "Borked"). Shameful!
insuranator 1 year ago 2
@insuranator Nobody ever said he didn't understand law. Kennedy said that Bork was a neo-con. You can have a conservative but not someone that radical. Bork is a segregationst who wanted to turn back the clock. That's not a good look.
upabittoolate 1 year ago
@insuranator video rentals? I thought that was just Thomas.
island4diver 11 months ago
@insuranator Watch - the - whole - video - please ; it was about the beginnings of an attempt by the Reagan Righteous to overturn Roe vs Wade by stacking the Supreme Court.
bannor99 8 months ago
the obama song -america i need your help (music video)
humbleguy2 1 year ago
Kagen should be "borked", unfortunately there aren't any senator/murderers (TK) willing to step up to the plate and try and save America from the endless plume of perversion and corruption emanating from DC.
jag10 1 year ago
In laymans terms , they have a inner circle which is not liked by another inner circle?
tlfettled 1 year ago
I find myself watching MSNBC more than I do Fox News becasue they like to 'play' with editing what people say. In 2005, I watched a tape of Bush explaining the siruarion in Iraq. Believe it or not, I got the full excerpt from Al Jazeera?
Chis Mattews, just let people talk! God, he's windy with himeslf!
Reagan deliberately nominated Bork for polirics, but look at Rosevelt! "Packing' the Supreme Court is nothing new.
6hojoe6 1 year ago
LV, I hate Fox News just as much as you do, but why don't you at least try to be fair and nonpartisan and hold DEMOCRATS and liberals on TV, like that jackass Chris Matthews or that smug fuck Keith Olbermann, accountable when they say stupid stuff?? And I've seen plenty broadcasts where they have said stupid stuff. MSNBC can be pretty bad, too, ya know. But you only seem to go after Fox. why??? Don't tell me you think Fox is all bad, and msnbc is totally good?
whoo689 1 year ago
Judges were never 'Borked' before Bork because in the Supreme Court, Judges could only 'enforce' the laws passed by Congress (with few exceptions) up until Roe. Roe overturned thousands of laws on killing the unborn. Laws that the people had agreed to via elected officials - Roe overturned all those laws with a pen stroke. Now Judges can redefine what certain laws "mean" by changing words. See "New London"
Regarding Kennedy - his letter to Andropov really is disappointing.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
Politics have *always* been a part of the supreme court. The difference is how public those political maneuvers are.
The supreme court is the single most powerful entity in the United States. It is far, *FAR* more powerful than the President or Congress. It is only natural that the most influential branch and office should be hard fought over.
Political philosophy, judicial philosophy, and societal shaping takes place there. It is only surprising we have done it without blood.
QuasiEvilScott 1 year ago
@QuasiEvilScott - and it was designed for the just the opposite - to have NO POWER WHATSOEVER - it could 'ONLY ENFORCE' the laws passed by CONGRESS.
Now the court picks and chooses what interpretations it feels it can get away with to wholly change laws on the books, laws that representatives 'we elect' have written and agreed to.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 I dont much care what it was "designed for" - this is how it turned out. I like what it's become. I dont much trust the "people." Granted, democracy is the least bad form of government thus far, but that's only because all other incarnations are worse.
The hard thought eloquent musings of the philosophical elite tempering and making it's best edits of how society should be defined is much preferred to the demography that could be. Beware platitudes, they are fickle mistresses.
QuasiEvilScott 1 year ago
@QuasiEvilScott
*demagoguery
Stupid spell check.
QuasiEvilScott 1 year ago
Genghis Kagan said she wants the government elimate speech she doesn't agree with. How long until they come for us????
niggerObamaHasAIDS 1 year ago
The whole house of cards is now teetering with the worst possible president leading the way. Not only is the worst possible president leading the way, the worst possible president is the architect of all it is
FrankCastlez 1 year ago
All TV news lies to you. This channel is crap.
st4ticblu3 1 year ago
“Prop. 14 Deception” is the funniest new political video on YouTube since the demon sheep political ad. Click on my profile to check it out!
noonprop14theatre 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
60 out of 58 democrats are mathematically literate ....signed Nancy Pelosi.
And then we have you two.
Remember in November
stpkeaton 1 year ago
60 out of 58 democrats are mathematically literate ....signed Nancy Pelosi.
Remember in November
stpkeaton 1 year ago
@stpkeaton Democrats are funded by the Auto industry, pretty much only americans buy american made vehicals, thus the Auto industry desires a working class capable of affording their rather costly product, & thus the democrats have a rational reason to support a working class capable of affording cars. Ergo the Democrats will work for the common man to an extent. There is no rational reason for the Republicans to support the working class. Remember that when you vote in November.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fuctmentality 60 out of 58 democrats are mathematically literate ....signed Nancy Pelosi.
And then there is you.
Remember in November
stpkeaton 1 year ago
@stpkeaton lol...you insani-tea baggin party freaks are making it possible for the democrats to keep a large majority in both houses...lmao...there are not enough racists to support all of your racist rhetoric and candidates...
thetruthis9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thetruthis9 60 out of 58 democrats are mathematically literate ....signed Nancy Pelosi.
And then there is you.
Remember in November
stpkeaton 1 year ago
@thetruthis9 blah blah blah....I race cars, what do you racist?
You don't even know me and you call me a racist....typical Democrite
stpkeaton 1 year ago
Liberalviewer needs to get a grip. Ted said Bork was a racist, school kids not being taught about what they are not taught today, And women are forced into back ally abortions. That was within 45 minutes. Those are your findings Liberalviewer? But you complain about the republicans? OK I don't get it.
jimisback 1 year ago
@jimisback thats because you don't want to get it...bork was a well known racist...the modern republican / insani-tea baggin party are full of them...you all feel that if you are white then you are "unamerican", if your name doesn't originate from europe then you are "unamerican", if you are not christian then you are "unamerican". "unamerican" is the new "n-word". 23days after obama takes office, tea bag republicans chant "i want my country back". lol, why, becuz the president is "unamerican"
thetruthis9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This election has proven just what a bunch of opportunistic, two faced, untrustworthy shysters the LiberalViewer is.
TheGuyFromZhills 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This election has proven just what a bunch of opportunistic, two faced, untrustworthy shysters the LiberalViewer is.
TheGuyFromZhills 1 year ago
Total leftist control of the media is dead! Bork was politicized by the leftist controled US media. That was in 1987. Fox showed up around 1996. This is the crux of leftist hate of FOX. They have lost control of media and thus can no longer manipulate.
usaleftistsareidiots 1 year ago
Democrats sucks
obama sucks
Power To The People!!!!!!!!!!!
munkee14man 1 year ago
Kagan's nothing but a liberal socialist rubberstamp sent to be Obama's troll,sent to undermine our constitution as it is written.She's never served on a court and has no actual judicial experience.But most limp-noodle Libby socialist believe the constitution is a forever changing document to be changed willy-nilly to fit their narrow-minded ideology of what should be fair and yea! lest we forget,diversity! diversity!Robert Bork was more than qualified and should have been confirmed!
Doughnutchef 1 year ago
WOW; you get your information from MSNBC! Why not go directly to the communist manifesto of Karl Marks?
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
@MsWanderer1 I'm going to bet you've never Read the Communist Manifesto.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality YOU LOSE!! :-)
Marks failed to account for fundamental human nature.
MsWanderer1 1 year ago
Liberals are to blame because they use the SC to make law from the bench. There still is no right in our Constitution supporting abortion.
dog64 1 year ago
@dog64 There is the right to privacy. Theres also the fact that 73& of Americans agree with the decision, so how about this we put it up for a national vote, if you win abortion is outlawed, if we win you people shut up, deal? Also the was nearly 4 decades ago it's no longer a liberal position.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality No, they did not win in 2000. I doubt you would shut up if it were outlawed. The right to privacy does not extend to taking life in private. Now we both know where each other stands and I know neither will change their view.
dog64 1 year ago
@dog64 "No, they did not win in 2000. " Yes they did, check for yourself." I doubt you would shut up if it were outlawed" Never said I would, Of course you wouldn't shut up after you lost either. "The right to privacy does not extend to taking life" The supreme court & 73% of Americans disagree.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Fuctmentality Whats percentage have to do with right and wrong? That's the thrust of my argument. Dred Scott didn't last either. Not making a comparison other than "percentages". The SC made law through the bench on that one because it would never pass any other way, that's my other point. They had to bypass the will of the people which is ok with liberals as long as it fits their view.
dog64 1 year ago
@dog64 "Whats percentage have to do with right and wrong?"
No ones discussing right & wrong my friend. Why did you post "percentages" in quotation marks? For that matter can you write a complete version of that sentences what is not not making comparisons?
"They had to bypass the will of the people" From what I can gather the majority of people were in favor of roe v wade, when it was first passed, & most people don't agree with legal decisions they are against on non-legal grounds.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@dog64 there is no right in our constitution banning it either.. each state has the power to ban it. and yet the christian conservative states, texas, arizona, geogria, all have yet to even put forth legislation stemming the use of abortion.. even better no republican president has ever even put pressure on states to ban it.. EVEN BETTER the first state to allow abortions was California in 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Act (under Ronald Reagan).. if you dont believe me look it upup..
bryarcole4 1 year ago
@bryarcole4 States rights...the end.
dog64 1 year ago
Obama won because McCain was too liberal, why do you think the Dems couldn't beat bush? Get ready for "change" my lib friends.
dog64 1 year ago
@dog64 The Dems did beat Bush in 2000.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
Fox = #1 ratings
How ya liking that?
mgallant01 1 year ago
Thanks for changing me from a Democrat to Republican
Devil7414 1 year ago
Left wing bigots are getting pretty demoralized by now. They are going to get louder and crazier as we approach the November 2010 elections.
pdalko 1 year ago
Wait till November 2010!! HAHHAH! BOO HOO!!
mgallant01 1 year ago
You should try arguing FOR your opposition long enough to equalize your own biases... it is clear you have been relegated to politicizing the politicizing.
rexriley 1 year ago
But Bork was given a up and down vote by the Senate and was not filibustered.
joeyconservative 1 year ago
Whatever, you liberal douchebags will pay in November...
chiefficke 1 year ago
You can clearly tell the right began publicizing supreme court nominations not just by history, but by their arguments every time a justice is to be appointed. They comb the records of all slightly liberal nominees and politicize ideology when ideology has no place on the supreme court. The job of the court is to interpret the constitution through historical context and litteral interpritations to apply to modern law.
lotrdude327 1 year ago
I love how LiberalViewer labels MSN as merely opinion but regards FOX's opinions as purposely manipulative. Typical liberal there, at least in my experience. There is nothing wrong with being liberal or conservative on face, but unfortunately I have met many more liberals (especially my age) than conservatives who truly have no idea why they are whatever it is they are. And if I must state this again, this is my experience. So if I get a reply saying 'You're generalizing" I will reply, "I know"
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 You're generalizing
Benjoreally 1 year ago
@Benjoreally Yeah......I am completely aware of that......what is your point......captain obvious.....?
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 You said: "I love how LiberalViewer labels MSN as merely opinion but regards FOX's opinions as purposely manipulative." It's not that MSNBC was labelled as "merely" opinion, LV's point was that the opinion show provided facts, backed up by video, to provide historical context to the discussion. Whereas, Fox's show which is supposed to be straight news, didn't.
And why I'm a liberal: Democracy is a LIBERAL idea. The US is born from the liberal ideals.
dytakeda 1 year ago
@dytada First, you're working with from the start, so how could you possibly arrive at a proper conclusion? "Fox's show which is suppose to be straight news" - Tell me dytakeda, please, where in this world can I find 'straight news'?
About Democracy and ''liberal', you act as if I am painting the latter very poorly. I most certainly am not and this is just an assumption on your part. Having said that, I will say Todays "liberals" do very little justice of what the term really means, IMO
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 - You started the conversation with the complaint about labels for Fox's show and MSNBC's show. I didn't say Fox's show is straight news, I said it's "supposed to be" straight news because that's how Fox labels it.
Regarding being a "liberal", again you said that many more liberals than conservatives have no idea why they are so. By stating such, you are painting liberals poorly... as thoughtless. I'm just telling you why I am the thoughtful liberal I am.
dytakeda 1 year ago
@dytakeda Why do you keep stating my generalization about liberals? I intentionally did so in the beginning, all the while implying the understanding that I am aware I am doing so, and then explicitly stated I am aware of that after you expressed a criticism of me doing it, and now you continue to state it as if I am unaware of what I have done. Do you need a third agreement on my part to make you believe I am aware of my own actions?
And anyways, I NEVER said you could not be thoughtful.
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 You said that I was acting as if you were painting liberals poorly. I was just stating why I did that, i.e., you saying that many more liberals than conservatives have no idea why they are so. If you were aware of your own actions, then why are you surprised that I would react negatively?
dytakeda 1 year ago
@dytakeda Fox labels itself as such because we live in a market-driven economy. CNN and MSN do the EXACT the same thing Fox does but through different means. But because you do often disagree with Fox's POV and because they simply state, for marketing purposes, "Fair and Balanced." you feel further convicted in your attacks on them- Perhaps Fox does think they are fair & balanced, who are you to say otherwise? Apparently you're the type of person who can also say MY OWN experiences are wrong
mtb416 1 year ago
@mtb416 I think you missed the point of LV's original statement. It's got nothing to do with a marketing slogan. Some shows are supposed to be straight news, others are opinion shows. Just like a newspaper. Some sections are news, and others are editorials. His original statement had to do with more facts and information, i.e., news, coming from the MSNBC opinion show than from the Fox news show. You're trying to spin it by calling it a "typical liberal" move.
dytakeda 1 year ago
@dytakeda I'm not trying to spin anything. Have a good one.
mtb416 1 year ago
i was a democrat do to the courpt health care bill i joined the tea party
Devil7414 1 year ago
Holy Shit! There's political bias in the media? Oh man, when this gets out people are gonna freak!
MrFleshwand 1 year ago
@MrFleshwand Yes, we should alert the media.
mtb416 1 year ago
I love to see liberals so mad at FOX NEWS. It makes me like it even more! If must kill you that FOX news is the highest rated cable news network. Does it? Hurt I mean1 hahahahhaaaaah. Can't stop laughing at you!
devildog12able 1 year ago
Has a vaccine that cures liberalism been developed yet? LOL.
Muzzy337 1 year ago
@Muzzy337 Anti-depressants cure the depressive realism.
Fuctmentality 1 year ago
@Muzzy337 I'm not sure, but I think GSK is currently doing Phase I studies on a pill that curbs closed-minded judgmental-ism over time. And with health insurance changes, and the potential lower costs on drugs forthcoming, perhaps by the time it's fully FDA approved, pharmacies can attend NASCAR events all around the Midwest and hand them out to all of those backwards rednecks.
oceanx 1 year ago
I remember the Bork hearings. I remember a very conservative co-worker rejecting Bork when she heard the man defend his view that there is no right to privacy in the constitution and government has the right to outlaw contraception. My Senator, Chuck Grassley, said at the time the job of the Senate was merely to determine if a nominee was qualified. He changed his tune when the nominee csme from a Democratic president.
ebullock43 1 year ago
Man, FOX news is a disgrace to your country.
You have no idea how many of the world media is already using their footage as a postcard for American conservatism and ignorance. Instead of showing us how America is healing from the crisis we just see footage of these racist tea parties and dirty politics from mostly one side.
20nothing 1 year ago
.
"The fairness of that attack is well documented" -- LiberalViewer
. . . in so much as any other lunatic socialist can "document" their lunacy as well as you can, overlooking your appeal to authority, of course.
TylerNull 1 year ago
@TylerNull TylerNull - Moronic nutbagger at his best
negrowithabrain 1 year ago
i was a democrat but after the they passed the health care bill me and my family joined the tea party and are now are republicans
Devil7414 1 year ago
@Devil7414 YOU HAVE MADE A VERY POOR DECISION. WHY GO TO THE ONES WHO DIDN'T WANT HEALTHCARE THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENCE AT ALL . PLUS THE REPUPLICANS ARE DEVILS. SO YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE REPUBLICANS MORE FOR NOT THE BILL TO PASS NOT THE DEMOCRATS. THINGS JUST DON'T HAPPEN OVER NIGHT .
unelmitchell 1 year ago
@Devil7414 so you're selfish.....what do you want.....a medal
eugeneonegin09 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
Don't worry, I'll help you.
.
#define:parasite — "leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage"
.
Denying reality on the grounds that it contradicts your emotions doesn't usually hold any more water than your average spaghetti strainer, mind you.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
LOL.... Liberals are dumb as rocks! I listen to this with total amusement. Rove trashed Kennedy? LOL As if Kennedy never trashed anyone eh? Including Robert Bork which Rove mentioned. I'll admit I will never understand the wiring of a liberal mind which I thank god for. Ted Kennedy was a jackass who killed Mary Jo and could never hold water (no pun) to his brother John, who actually did positive things for this country. Ted did nothing but wreck it.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to know how the wealthy are screwing you? Are You Aware Of the CLASS WAR IN AMERICA? Do you want to STOP IT OR HELP?
Go to. w.w.w.g.r.e.e.d.w.o.r.l.d.c.o.m WITHOUT THE PERIODS where they shouldn't be
RECOPY AND PASTE THIS IN ANOTHER VIDEO IF YOU CARE!!!
Peace
stopthewealthy 1 year ago
I think abortion is both legal and moral, and object only to somebody suggesting that it is illegal (which is implied by calling an abortionist a murderer, since murder is an unlawful killing by definition) because the legality of the act is not subjective, very much unlike the issue of whether it's morally correct.
.
Just to make that clear.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck You can think whatever you want. That does not make it so. Killing an unborn child simply for a woman's convenience is immoral. The fact that it was made legal is the only thing standing between the moral people of this society and those who kill children for a living. I guess you would not have a problem then with a society that decides to kill gay people.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe; Well, let's compare a fetus to a homosexual. One is a fetus, which doesn't entitle it to any rights, the other is an animal, a person, a human, a citizen, with just as many rights as the rest of us. So, no, I wouldn't condone the systematic killing of gay people.
.
"Person" refers to the human body, and "People" are humans who have bodies. If you're not a human, you cannot be considered a person, ergo fetuses are not people. Willful ignorance of SIMPLE logic is not an argument.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
not caring about policy and caring about judicial philosophy is the definition of not politicizing the appointment of judicial appointees.
How dare u suggest that by not saying both parties politicize the hearings they are picking sides, it is abhorent to you that one side could be responsible?
Kenney is adding politics to matters of judicial consideration when politicizing appointee processes.
aweiss 1 year ago
@Loathomar I see your point, but what I meant to say is that for a supreme court judge the only opinion that matters is what the original founders intended and the intention of the amendments. The person's personal opinion doesn't matter. The reason is that you can think of the Constitution as a contract, kind of, or an agreement, where the federal government is told what they can and can't do. If the agreement keeps on changing whenever a judge doesn't like it, the Constitution is not reliable
Dustman3400 1 year ago
@Dustman3400 Obviously, the founders couldn't imagine everything, which is why we can amend the Constitution. But it was meant to be difficult. Allowing the supreme court to vote for or against something because of what they think the government should be able to do, gives that branch too much power. The Constitution was intended to separate powers to ensure that small groups of people have too much power, and control the shots. The Constitution should not be able to be changed easily.
Dustman3400 1 year ago
@GoldenAxeArcade
Seriously?
Your watching the Liberalviewers channel and you cant find any video where Fox lies? Have you even tried to just search "fox lies" in hes channel, or youtube for that matter?
They are omitting facts they know are critical to the story and willingly twists there "understanding" of the facts, even when they really know whats what, just to push there agenda. Its propaganda and propaganda is basically lying.
If its not, then I guess Joseph Gobbles didnt lie ether...
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222
It's not propaganda really, propaganda involves only lies of omission, whereas fox news is deceptive by omission and fabrication.
Of course lying to and about americans in a way that damages them is betrayal of the nation, also called treason.
yubarraboo 1 year ago
@yubarraboo
define:propaganda
(A) The systematic effort of controlling public opinion or a course of action by using selected facts, ideas or allegations. (B) Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.
Thats the definition, now tell me thats not Fox and I can tell you that youre ether blind or lying.
Lobos222 1 year ago
He also felt that there was no basis for the "privacy" right as used in the Roe v. Wade decision. He did say that it could possibly be found in the 9th amendment but that was never considered by the Warren court in it's Roe decision. There was a lot of distortion of Bork's views and his actual judicial record could was not criticized so much as his earlier academic articles. This has caused Presidents to no longer nominate jurists with a paper trail and those with an academic background.
keven1956 1 year ago
What Ted Kennedy said on the floor of the Senate was not merely a refutation of Bork's judicial philosophy but a complete distortion of his views to discredit him as a human being and not simply as a jurist. At the time the attacks mostly centered on Robert Bork's academic writings that were not politically correct. He had written many years previously that Taney might have been correct in his reasoning regarding portions of the Dred Scott decision as it was before the 13th - 15th amendments.
keven1956 1 year ago
I believed Bork described himself as an "Originalist," in the mode of Justices Scalia and Thomas. I find the very concept to be pretentious - as if anyone could know exactly what was in the minds of the Framers. Parts of the Constitution were written as vague compromises to ensure ratification when the Framers themselves could not reach agreement. Furthermore, Bork's own behavior - before and after the hearing and on the DC Circuit Court show him to be a reactionary activist.
LarcheOsborne 1 year ago
@LarcheOsborne It's funny that the constitution is "vague" when it suits one and very concrete when it doesn't.
mcgloinm 1 year ago
If you look at Bork's wiki page, he seems to be depicted as having a doctine of "original intent" rather than "legislating from the bench". He clearly was conservative and is most definitely anti-abortion. I've seen one of his speeches along those lines.
truevoiceofsanity 1 year ago
My apologies to projectcheck. The comments were a bit confusing but I think it's commonsensejoe to whom my responses were directed. Common sense? More like uncommon sense! LOL Anyone know why there is a "FREE NEWT" add in the righthand corner of this webpage? Didn't know he was in jail. What took so long?
jereuter01 1 year ago
Projectcheck! Lastly, - know that you can never again put someone on the rack, burn at the stake or throw into a dungeon or cell any woman who choses to end her pregnancy. You may stand on your soap box and damn those who disagree with you until doomsday, nothing more, so rant on. We are impervious to your uncommon sense and we are not going back to pre-Roe barbarism.
jereuter01 1 year ago
Projectcheck! Additionally, until that proverbial unbilical cord is cut, it will always be the right of the woman not any man to chose what she will do with her own body. As usual you typlify the neoconservative fundamentalist Christian foaming and frothing at the mouth beating your chest and as fear monger damning to hell those who disagree with you.
jereuter01 1 year ago
Projectcheck! Tthe legal medical procedure you call "abortion" is a legal one that has nothing to do with your Judeo-Christian "reality" dogma. "Murder" has a very clear and defined definition and abortion is not murder, nor is a fetus a "child" by any definition. By the way - great video - Bork was a nutcase!
jereuter01 1 year ago 2
@jereuter01 When was he or she NOT a child? What medical fact changed as a result of Roe vs. Wade? The issue was whether the child had rights, not whether he or she had life.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe;
Humans, like all other animals, are characterized by voluntary movement. Lifeforms without voluntary movement aren't considered animals, and something that cannot be considered an animal [i.e. fetuses] cannot be considered human, because humans are animals.
.
Hopefully I've cleared that up for you.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck
By your definition, people who have been rendered in a vegetative state are not animals.
This is clearly wrong. Maybe if you knew that animals are generally classified as organisms that gather nutrients through some form of ingestion, and that anything descended from an animal, is still an animal, regardless of what stage of development it is in, you wouldn't have made such a grievous error.
But this is Youtube, so who cares?
belliebum12 1 year ago
@belliebum12;
Yes, and by your "general" definition of anything that gathers nutrients to ingest, even plants could be called animals. My main studies are in literature, and I'm having a hard time finding a definition of "animal" that doesn't mention voluntary movement.
.
You say that anything descended from an animal is still an animal—have you anything to support this claim beyond asserting it as fact?
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@~continued;
Oh, and your attempt to falsify my definition of 'animal' was daft. You started by forming an appeal to ridicule fallacy (Google it) and then proceeded to not explain by any means why somebody in a vegetative state should still be considered an animal, considering they're lacking the characteristic by which we distinguish animals from generic lifeforms.
.
You instead just stated that the idea of them being non-animals is "clearly wrong," as if clarity isn't completely subjective.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck I am not the one with the problem. You have attempting to justify murdering an unborn child with word games. An unborn child is live. This is not my opinion. It is a medical and legal fact. The only issue is why you think they should be killed.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
No Joe, I never tried to justify anything. I've said that multiple times. I pointed out the factual inaccuracy in describing abortion (where it's legal) as murder, because murder denotes an unlawful act. There's no point in taking issue with me for pointing out the obvious.
.
Abortion is legal during the first trimester, before the fetus is viable (meaning it can survive outside the uterus). Until viable, it's not considered a person of its own.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck I still believe it is murder because there is no justification for killing an innocent child. Viability is not how we determine life either. We are killing children well into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. If I determine that those with dark skin are not "a person" based on the color of their skin, is it no less murder to kill them if I convince the government to sanction it?
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe;
Yes, if you lawfully kill somebody, you're not a murderer. This seriously shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.
.
Viability isn't supposed to determine whether it's alive, because just being alive doesn't suddenly grant it rights. It's not a person until it can survive outside the uterus, and it's not an animal (ergo not a human) until it can move voluntarily. The latter usually doesn't happen until the third trimester, at which point the state can prohibit the abortion.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck I understand your strictness of definition in a legal sense, but I am looking at it from a moral sense. I wish you applied the same standard to your definition of life. Yes, it regard to humans, life always granted rights until the Supreme Court determined otherwise. A unborn infant can and does move of it's own accord long before the third trimester. The child is alive the moment he or she is imparted in the wall of uterus. He or she has a separate DNA from their mother.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe;
Murder is a legal term. I never said that laws dictate morality. Just that abortion isn't illegal and ergo not murder. The only reason life doesn't grant a fetus rights is because it's not a human, and it's not a person. There's nothing that makes the fetus any more deserving of rights than a common house fly. It's a potential human, sure, but so is semen, and I don't think we should charge anybody who masturbates as a murderer.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@~continued;
Oh, and it's not an issue of whether an unborn infant (which is an oxymoron used intentionally to make a non-human fetus seem more important) can move at all, it's whether it can move voluntarily, and to do something voluntarily requires intention, which fetuses are not capable of. For example, sunflowers will turn to face the sun, but that doesn't make them animals—they're still plants, and fetuses are still fetuses.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck Now you are hiding behind the term "fetus". We all know we are talking about an unborn child. Try explaining that logic to a woman who WANTS the child she is carrying. You look at an ultrasound, and you see a child. The value of a person's life should not be determine by their mother. How do you know the child does not have "intention"? The child feels pain and reacts to outside stimuli. Denying life on an arbitrarily drawn line does not make it right or moral.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
I use the term "fetus" because it's the most correct; I'm in no way hiding behind it. The term "unborn child" is inherently incorrect and patently impossible. It's an internal contradiction, and is no more feasible than a living corpse, or a progressive conservative.
.
Committing constant category mistakes doesn't constitute an argument. She's not a mother until the child is born, it's a fetus you see on the ultrasound (not a child), and most importantly, fetuses are NOT PEOPLE.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck Sure you are. The term was never used before Roe Vs Wade. We all know it is a child. Have you ever heard the phrase, "she is with child"? No one says, "How old is your fetus?" Calling the child a fetus dehumanizes them. However, it does not change the fact that abortion is killing a child. Every woman who is pregnant and wants the child is a mother. I don't know what to call those who kill their own babies.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe; The term 'fetus' has been used since the 1500s, and common speech of "How old is the baby?" (which is what I've heard, NEVER 'How old is your child?' etc.) doesn't make it correct. Yeah, calling it a fetus does dehumanize it, and rightfully so considering IT'S NOT A HUMAN.
.
Abortion is not killing a child because it's not a child until it's born, & Pregnant women only gain the title of 'mother' AFTER they give birth. Are you just trying to make as many mistakes as possible?
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck The child is human. The child is alive. You can try to cover up your complicity in the killing with word games but it just won't wash. When a woman is pregnant, she is a mother. If she miscarriages, she loses a child, a person, and a life. The only difference between her and the woman who terminates her child's life is their attitude towards the child. It is your own flaw logic that you have a problem with me, not me.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
So your strategy is as follows: state something that is inherently and patently incorrect, cover it with emotional appears, and then claim anybody who corrects you is playing a 'word game'.
.
Sorry, no, you're the one playing a word game trying to make fetuses seem more important than they actually are by INCORRECTLY referring to them as unborn children, as people, and as humans, NONE OF WHICH they actually are. It's petty and if you had any self-respect you'd cut it out.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck I won't by into your own delusion. We are talking about an unborn child. It is absolutely correct to do so. You know I am right. They are human. You can draw all kinds of lines and make up your own definition all you want. Facts are facts. Once that fertilized egg implants, he or she is a separate person with a different DNA. They are the result of ACTIONS taken by the woman who now carries the child. You cannot change these uncomfortable facts. The emotion is REAL.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe;
You aren't one to talk about facts, considering you're completely oblivious to them. You've demonstrated for the umpteenth time that your name is a terrible misnomer because you are void of all common sense, let alone any sense at all.
.
You use terms like "unborn child" as an emotional appeal because your thought process doesn't involve logic (the alternative to emotion). You're implying that I'm delusional for using the correct definitions? You're a JOKE. Get out of here.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck You are inventing your own definitions. For the umpteenth time, we are talking about a child, a person, and human being. There is basis for drawing a line here or there. You are the joke because you know you are wrong, but cannot handle the reality that over a million people are DEAD because of your thinking.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe
I'm talking about ACTUAL definitions. You're the one who's making up your own, and you'd know that had you have read a dictionary at some point in your lifetime. You have no respect for literacy, you just use whatever words you want to, however you want to, and pretend that I'm doing something wrong by pointing out your obvious errors.
.
Not a single person has died because of abortion. In fact, abortion has saved many people from death. I'm sure you'll deny that too.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck Laws do dictate morality. They are based on morality. I just think hiding behind legal terminology is cowardice. Be that as it may, you are still dodging the issue with terminology. The unborn child is a person. Semen is NOT a life because it will not ever become anything other than semen. Masturbating is not the same as killing a child in the womb. The Supreme Court removed the right of life from the unborn child for nothing more than the convenience of a woman.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe Just because something is against the law doesn't make it immoral and just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Laws do NOT dictate morality.
.
You're the one who used legal terminology by calling abortionists murderers. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of common sense when they decided that a fetus doesn't have rights. 'Pro-life' is just republican code for 'anti-freedom', fetuses aren't people and therefore have no rights.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@~cont. "Masturbating is not the same as killing a child in the womb."
If it's still in the womb, then it's not a child. Fetuses are no more people, animals, humans, or citizens than all the semen that is wasted whenever somebody masturbates. That was the purpose of the comparison.
ProjectCheck 1 year ago
@ProjectCheck Only according to you! Unborn babies are people. They are persons who until Roe v. Wade had the right to life. Funny how liberals fight for gay rights and civil rights, but not the right to life.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago