America is becoming an increasingly scary place. The british used laws like this in Ireland, lead to some horrific stuff. For anyone interested i suggest you look into the Guildford Four. Americans be afraid
I can't understand how some people ONLY get their Political news from Fox. They've misinformed SO MANY people since 2008. It's beyond obvious to me that they don't care about anything but making Obama look bad. They couldn't care less if their "facts" are lies.
@ramone2185: Yeah, but here's the royal tragedy: THE SIGNING OF THE NDAA WAS THE PERFECT PIECE TO USE AGAINST OBAMA. It's both horrific and true, and as you can see, Fox didn't even lift a finger.
Hands down this is the most outrageous decision Obama has made and I am very unhappy with it! I don't know what the Hell he's thinking! You don't GET a more blatant disregard for civil liberties than this!
And what surprises me even more is Fox's complacency! I mean this would've been the ONE time I could've gotten behind Fox's outrage and I get nothing from them! Where the fuck is there Obama bashing when it actually matters?! Fuck this bill!
Please watch my story"TIFFANY LEBOUEF SEEKS JUSTICE". I have documents to prove my innocence yet no one wants to even acknowledge it. My life has been destroyed.
Look up PRISON STOCKS....very lucrative....WHO ARE THE INVESTORS???
Funny how everyone in Washington, with a few exceptions, is a neoconservative now. It's not that suprising though considering neither party is that different anyway. Obama is worse than Bush because of when he is President; everything has already been predetermined for him to do, so he will look worse, especially because, as a candidate, he emphasized the very opposite to what Bush did.
Remember when people claimed 9/11 attacks were done because America is free? Well, they fixed that problem, didn't they? Americans... always complaining, lol.
I am constantly reminded why I subscribed to this channel. I can't say I can remember a single video wherein I disagreed with you. Now I'm waiting for that ONE vid where I do. XD
Bush...then Obama. As The Who sang "the new boss is the same as the old boss". Funny how so-called progressives still worship and suck Obamas dick. They are egaging in celebrity worship. The first black president!!!! OH!!! He can do no wrong - hes so honest and sincere. Right, actually what hes done is even go farther than the Patriot Act - Obama is actually worse than Bush. Dumbass liberals.
Try tell Obama's sycophants that. He won a peace prize for his rhetoric. Then bombed more countries than Bush. Rendition continued and he didn't bend on Israeli settlements. He is a joke.
@trollfinger Oh it's so sad. Obama sings a few words from an Al Green song and sales jump 490%. A bunch of YouTubers went over to that ABC clip and tried to smack some sense into those sheeple.
This is why 9/11 was a scam, now terrorism is the excuse for the government to capture anyone who opposes them, anyone who rebels for our rights and freedom, and the worst part is that those people will be presented to you as traitors/terrorists.
"Freedom would be meaningless without security at home and in the streets".
This added to SOPA and we are mere puppets in their hands, no truth will be published by free independent media, no sharing of ideas and opinions...
It's the fucking McCarthy era again... except, instead of Communism being the bogeyman, it's now Terrorism. The owners of America have seen their dream realised; the ability to lock anyone up at any time for any reason. They must be wetting their pants.
I am disapointed that Obama has been unable to achieve the best for your country, although he has raised Americas standing in the eyes of the world after the last, cough, debacle, he has been unable to carry through with much that was anticipated after he was elected, seeing the candidates you guys have to vote on in the next election I must say I feel for you guys. Remember in the absence of good governance one must choose the lesser of two weevils.
I have a good idea; lets call the FBI and tell them that we suspect our representatives of being terror suspects. Then we can replace them and reverse the law.
You know what's crazy about that joke.. it might be a real solution. El oh el Honestly, if we could find the correct way to phrase it and correct time and place to enact our righteous vengeance, we could ACTUALLY do that.
Everytime ObamaNation takes a shit, he uses the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to WIPE HIS ASS. But what would you expect a follower of Satan the Anti-Christ himself to do as a enemy of freedom, liberty, humanity. If you want you can turn me in for Hate Speech or a violation of NDAA. Heck i will supply you my name, address and phone number! Then we will see if the NDAA is what we all fear when I am arrested!
Here's a thought: For those old enough to remember, can you imagine Richard Nixon with these new powers? Here's an even scarier thought: What about the president eight or ten administrations from now? Who is s/he? and will these powers be used to vanquish all political opponents and challengers? Will people be "blackmailed" into submission in order to free their loved ones from the "American Archipelago"?
Those who want to say that Fox News "Straight reporting" with a spin is the equivalent of MSNBC's news "analysis and editorial commentary" are way off the mark. Comparing Hannity to Maddow is far more realistic.
I like this video, but you neglected to mention one thing:
Just how incredibly broad and poorly defined the term "Terrorist" is in terms of US Defense. Do you know, for example, that you can be considered a Terrorist if you possess a firearm, or your pantry contains more than six days of food?
As a Canadian, I have less to worry about, but if I were you people, I'd start IMMEDIATELY working on Impeaching Obama, and every single congressman and senator who voted for that bill. ALL OF THEM!
After assassinating an American anything Obama says about human rights is useless rhetoric. I also remember Freedom watch talking about this for ten minutes on FOX Business. Other than the MSNBC being better than FOX thing (sorry they are both fairly biased, I like CSPAN for a reason) I completely agree with you on this video. Right down to wondering why people don't make politicians pay for this type of action.
LiberalViewer, this indefinite detention bill seems facially unconstitutional based on my reading of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. How can Obama defend signing this in light of that ruling?
Ever notice that earlier this year, hacking became legally considered an Act of War. Aka hackers are terrorists. So with SOPA going into effect which basically tries to get people to hack. This seems all bad
@liberalviewer Doesn't the constitution prohibit congress from passing laws that will infringe on rights that are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights? I don't know much about the law, but it seems as though this specific prevision would require a constitutional amendment to be defensible in court.
@cyxgun yes, this should be considered governmental misconduct and the offenders -- those that voted yes -- should be charge as such. Then they CAN stand for trial.
muslims are used as a pawn in order to control civil rights and the only way to control civil rights is to orchastrate S11, whereby governments create an atmosphere for the need for increased security. This is a scary thing as anyone on a whim can acuse you of terriosm and imprision you for the term of your natural life. This is scary because any crazed politician with an agenda can acuse you
I just called Senator Levin's office and asked if this law allows for the indefinite detention - without trial - of U.S. citizens. His office told me that the law was amended by #1456 to NOT CHANGE existing law regarding detentions.
Even if you think this bill does everything the alarmists say it does, why is all the blame being put on Obama? The congress passed the NDAA with a VETO proof majority. Nothing he could do except issue a signing statement, which Obama did, and it clarifies his position. Obama's position, and many other legal expert's positions, are that the NDAA does not permit indefinite detention of US Citizens.
Not you too? ACLU is garbage. If you go to the lawfare blog they do a much better job of explaining why this bill is does not allow the President to indefinitely detain citizens, there is an exemption. READ THE BILL PEOPLE. People in the media, aren't there to inform, they are there to scare you, get ratings, and get money.
To your first question, if they value and uphold the Constitution as the should, the judges will strike down this bill. That said, I need only look to the PATRIOT Act to find the disappointing answer.
I hate many of Ron Paul's policies. But it is exactly this kind of legislation (the NDAA) that is the kind of thing he fought against in the past. He publicly called it the establishment of martial law in the US and he would veto it as president. I'll probably vote for him because I hate him less than I hate the rest - Mittama Robomney (same person) or any of the other morons that wouldn't even place in a running. How did South Park put it? The choice is between a douche and crap sandwich?
Question 1: No, the supreme court has 5 to 4 in favor of hard right conservative fascism. This law will go unopposed by the supreme court.
Question 2: Congress has an 8% approval rating and we have no one to step up in either party to take the populist position. When you're a lying shill and your only competition is other lying shills, you're the lying shill with name recognition. That's why they don't pay a political price.
As always, thank you LiberalViewer, for the lucid observations. Until a majority of Americans begin practicing non-violent civil disobedience against this corrupt, corporation-run government little will change. For years now we have watched and read reports about how biased our government has become and yet so few are willing to upset their little "life cubicle" to bring about change. We are all passively sitting by and watching as our country is taken over by looters.
The media is owned by a small group of rich moguls. every facet of it is scripted and vetted. just won't be reported. The Big O constitutional scholar, just keeps cranking out more unconstitutional legislation. it's not by coincidence either.
I disagree with Dr Paul on foreign policy. The other domestic issues I concur for the most part, but I admit his isolationism is a big buzzkill. It distracts me from his other well-known positions because he has said some unfortunate and discontended things about Israel, in particular.
You may disagree, but I find them insulting -- many on our side do. Just my opinion.
@conservativesaiyan Ron Paul is not an isolationist: he is a non-interventionist. Two completely different things.
You'll have to be more specific about these statements Ron Paul has said that you find insulting: the only statements I recall support Israel's sovereignty, their right to defend themselves, and to maintain open trade with them, while avoiding entangling alliances and financial aid with them (or other nations for that matter). Less insulting and more astute imo.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
As a European, the route the US have taken over the last decade or decade and a half is extremely scary. It's like you are falling behind and you know it and any day now you will conclude that it is better not to have a world society at all than to have one where you are not the obvious go-to powerhouse and blow shit to kingdom come.
Please get your heads out of the clouds or sand respectively and sort things out.
@tanekki Europeans really need to get your own head out of the clouds. Europe is in a worse condition than the US. Economically many European nations are already having to receive bail outs, where as America added 2.7 Million jobs this year (it's slow but not in a recession like many Europeans). Also, Europeans don't even elect EU leaders and most also never got a referendum. Europe and America need to BOTH get their act together.
@AmzitheSoldier Europe is not worse off, really. Also the European issues now are to a large extent caused by the US banks breaking the world economy. Now, I'm not saying Europe is all that and something everyone should strive to be. It just is not as fucked in the ass by conservatism as the US is. Yet. We do not directly elect EU leaders, but the EU is not our government, either. It is a union between countries. We elect our own leaders whom in turn elect EU leaders.
@tanekki Yes, as of right now Europe is in a worse place. The 2008 recession was largely caused by USA, right now Europe is doing bad because of it's own problems like debt. Conservatism is good economically (at least when they co-operate), but socially it is horrible. The EU has made 18,917 Legislative acts (which are mainly regulatory and not budgetary) to which the members of the EU follow.. It's still not democratic.
@AmzitheSoldier Well Europe isn't a single entity in the way the US is. Parts are worse off. Others are not. I'd still say the euro is in better shape now than the usd was in -08. Conservatism isn't good economically, imho. And of those acts the vast majority is already part of the local legislation of all member nations. Also the indivudial nations can override them. That is rare though. I agree the system is bad, though.
@SexedUpAtheist Personally, our candidates suck. I'm the new generation so I want new blood. We need new blood. Our field is often tenuous and tedious but is what we got so I'll support whoever wins the nomination. But your choice is as good or better than mine.
There are two things certain in life: Taxes and Power.
@conservativesaiyan I can agree with you on most of the candidates available, but I'm not exactly sure how you would justify saying that Ron Paul sucks.
Is he perfect? Of course not: nobody is.
Does he offer the best solution to our current problems? As far as I can determine, he does. He's offering real cuts to the budget, real solutions to our foreign policy issues, and of all of the candidates, his offers are backed by real consistency that has been proven over time.
@conservativesaiyan Your right Ron Paul is unelectable he encourages people to think for themselves, encourages people to work towards reducing all types of dependency on others. Can you imagine? Have you ever heard anything so un-American? Ron Paul has a habit of exposing phantom fears that don't actually exist. Last election Paul had more support from retired veterans than all the others COMBINED Alas standing on ones own 2 feet can be frightening & so he will never be Pres
My my look at all the confused Obama supporters. You guys were all dancing in the streets when your slick smooth talking Harvard boy got elected. You were so excited, you just could wait for him to implement some of that hope & change. WELL HERE TIS Go'on now, get up there an get yourself a biiggg helping of change And you still dont see it. Your blind While your Chocolate Jesus takes all of your liberties away, what do you do? WHAT DO ALL OF YOU DO? You complain about fox Unfucking believable
@mperhaps bitch, shut up. You think that finger pointing is working out? What the fuck are your big solutions? You think bush did better? Our presidents since about Mr. Ronald have all been puppets, our system isn't working and hasn't worked for a while! Grow up dick head!!!!!!!
@aquabound6161 So what you're saying is:You voted for Obama didn't you wateretainer6161 and it feels like you got a little sand in your couch? Well these things happen. Don't throw me in with the rest of these partisan cheerleaders. Foreign policy & corporate accountability are indistinguishable between G.W. & Obama. TARP however can be placed largely on the lap of Clinton's Grahmn/Bliley act that snuffed the protection we enjoyed from the glass/steghal act 1933 Hope&Change baby
@roentgen571 You're wrong: Obama is just as bad as all but one of the GOP candidates. If you disagree, then please explain why Obama didn't veto the National Defense Authorization Act? I know Obama said that the Constitution was an "imperfect document", but only now do I see that he was referring to the part where it confers freedom, rights and personal liberties to U.S. citizens.
@SexedUpAtheist Sorry, but although I feel the NDAA is abhorrent and I will NOT be voting for Obama unless he vetoes it, I disagree that he's as bad as the GOP candidates. Just the fact that he's pro-choice puts him over all of them. BTW, Ron Paul's a nut. Just sayin'.
@roentgen571 No offense, but I would suggest that you consider re-evaluating your priorities a bit if you honestly think that being against expecting a woman to take responsibility for her choices outweighs taking away every U.S. citizen's rights.
I used to consider myself pro-choice, too.. but then I realized that the 'choice' is made before the pregnancy occurs, and that the woman should be held accountable, and expected to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.
@SexedUpAtheist What I honestly think is that either action (outlawing abortion or making it legal to imprison Americans indefinitely without showing good reason to a judge first) is an absolutely atrocious position to take. Unfortunately, the GOP candidates all support both, while Obama only supports one.
"The woman should be held accountable"--yeah, because pregnancy should be a punishment for behavior you personally dislike. How is having an abortion not taking responsibility?
@roentgen571 (continued) this position of yours makes as much sense to me as denying medical care to someone who breaks a leg while skiing because he knew what the risks were, and he ought to take responsibility for his actions.
The fact is, the embryo is not a person, and even if it were, that does not give it the right to use the woman's body against her will. Period. I'm a bit of an absolutist when it comes to abortion rights--being pro-life is a dealbreaker for me re: politicians.
@roentgen571 Behavior I dislike? Considering that I enjoy sex, and marriage isn't a requirement for that, your statement is a straw man.
Murder is never an acceptable means of taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Your analogy is flawed. The man is not attempting to engage in legalized murder in order to take responsibility for his actions, and nobody wants to deny the woman the right to medical care.
@SexedUpAtheist the analogy isn't flawed, because no one is being murdered in an abortion. "Legalized murder" is an oxymoron, it's a meaningless statement.
The fact is, the fetus is a person in that they are the known beginning of an individual human life, it does have a prima facie right to the mother's body, and it cannot be considered against the mother's will unless her life is threatened by the pregnancy or she was forced into sexual intercourse. Period.
I would suggest "Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist", written by Francis J. Beckwith, for a new perspective.
@SexedUpAtheist You're mistaken, the embryo is not a person (it's not a fetus until relatively late in development), it has no functional brain, no capacity for self-awareness and rational thought, no memories, no nothing. It's as much a "person" as a tomato plant is. Yes, it's the beginning of a person, and someday may well become a person, but it is not a person now. And no, it doesn't have a right to use the woman's body if she doesn't want it.
@roentgen571 You're the one that is mistaken. Unlike a tomato plant, an embryo possesses 46 human chromosomes passed down from the mother and father, and begins developing a human brain, heart, spinal cord, etc. in the 5th week.
I clearly stated that it is where the human life begins, and yes, it does have the right to use the woman's body: she gave up her right to personal autonomy the moment she engaged in the act of procreation, knowing the potential consequences of her actions.
@SexedUpAtheist I'm not mistaken. Every cell in my body has human chromosomes, does that make them all people? And yes, those organs begin developing--key word there is "begin." The brain has no ability for organized higher-level activity until well into the 3rd trimester at the earliest. Having a spine or a heart doesn't make you a person--having a functional brain does.
@roentgen571 Keep playing the semantics game, I find it amusing.
You are mistaken. Yes, it makes them human cells, belonging to a human. You won't find human cells in a tomato plant, nor will you find human cells in a dolphin which, by the way, manages to possess a functional brain yet somehow manages to not be human: I guess that's how they justify slaughtering non-human animals by the truck/boatload.
@SexedUpAtheist so human cells are people? you completely missed the point, which is that it takes more than having 46 chromosomes from a father and mother to be a person. The embryo has 46 chromosomes. So what? So do the cells in my skin, muscles, eyes, etc. The dolphin has a functional brain, but I didn't say it takes a functioning brain to be a person. I said it takes one capable of self-awareness and rational thought.
@roentgen571 Bullshit. You said that a functioning brain is required to be a person. Sorry, but you don't get to just pretend that you didn't, especially when it's right there for everybody to see.
Chimpanzees are capable of self-awareness and rational thought, yet they're not humans. Care to discard this, and come up with a new defining characteristic to justify your viewpoint?
@SexedUpAtheist You keep saying "humans" and I keep saying "persons." Yes, if a chimpanzee demonstrates self-awareness and rational thought, then it should have the same sorts of protections for its life that we do. If human life does not demonstrate such (as, say, a human kidney in a bucket of ice waiting for transplant), then no, killing it should not be considered in the same league as killing a thinking person.
@roentgen571 I love it! You're bending over backwards trying to make a case, and failing miserably. A human kidney is not human life: nice try, though.
@roentgen571 You have no valid point, and so I'm not going to address this. Any future statements in which you fail to make a valid point will receive the same treatment.
@SexedUpAtheist LOL in other words, the best argument you can come up with is "Is not! Is NOT! IS NOT!!!!" Sexedup, you're out of your league, son. I bid you good day, and, as a parting gift, I'll let you have the last word. Go ahead, pronounce victory and tell me what an uninformed, biased idiot I am.
@roentgen571 I accept your formal declaration of defeat, tainted as it is by your poor sportsmanship.
Surely, though, you must have known that this would be the inevitable outcome, considering your inability to present a valid argument, and your heavy reliance on various argumentative fallacies ranging from straw man to ad hominem.
Perhaps you will learn from this experience, and be better prepared with more efficient weapons in any future engagements.
@SexedUpAtheist Oh, well, since you're going to lie about what I said, I'll just take back my decision to let you have the last word. My arguments were valid, your inability to counter them and just flat denial of their legitimacy may pass for "argumentation" at the middle school you flunked out of, but they don't fly in the real world. Sorry you can't do better-I'd wish you better luck next time, but since you're already convinced this poor performance was a victory, you'll need more than luck.
@SexedUpAtheist You did lie, as I did not offer a declaration of defeat. Quite the contrary, anyone who's been following this one-sided argument has seen me lay out points you've been unable to refute by anything other than shouting "Is not!" and then declaring that sufficient. Cry more? I cry, yes--but my tears are from laughter.
@roentgen571 Your defeat was a foregone conclusion, and I simply assumed that you were trying to "gracefully" bow out.. but I must say that I'm glad (and not surprised) that you feel an overwhelming need to flog a dead horse, for fun and/or profit (all mine), and so return to destroy what little credibility you never actually had, as well as to make a complete fool of yourself for my amusement. By all means: I know you've got a lot more fail left in you to share with the rest of us!
@SexedUpAtheist I know you clearly stated it. It just doesn't matter. It's "human life" but it's not a person. The cells growing in the skin of my arm are human life, too. They're not people. And sorry, but I disagree--the women does not give up her right to autonomy. And why isn't "having an abortion" a "potential consequence of her actions"? Sorry, but A) the embryo is not a person, B) even if it were, it has no right to stay in the woman's body. Period.
@roentgen571 Yes, and if I were to rip the skin of your arm off, I'd be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for it. Funny how that works, isn't it? Your skin has more rights than a fetus.
You can disagree to your heart's content, and apologize profusely for not having a sound argument to support what amounts to your unsubstantiated opinion, but it won't change anything. Period.
@SexedUpAtheist you wouldn't be arrested for killing skin cells, you'd be arrested for assault and battery (and probably mayhem) on me. Thanks for your permission to disagree, but I'll pass on your invitation to apologize, since I have nothing to apologize for: my argument's as sound as arguments get; the only unsubstantiated opinion here is yours.
@roentgen571 Thank you for clarifying the difference between skin cells and people... and no, your arguments are anything but sound. Please learn the definition of a word before you apply it (incorrectly) to something.
@sardeth Too bad you couldn't follow his example, seemingly only capable of various argumentative fallacies in order to (fail to) make your point. ;)
If a person drinks, knowing alcohol's intoxicating effects, and this person gets behind the wheel of an automobile and proceeds to kill one or more persons in an accident, he cannot rely on his personal autonomy (right to his body) or having no intention of killing anybody as a defense for his actions (killing other people). This is fact.
@SexedUpAtheist You have a real problem with declaring things to be facts when they're not facts at all. Saying there was no intention to hurt anyone is absolutely a defense in drunk driving. It makes the difference between a manslaughter charge and first degree murder.
@roentgen571 You have a real problem with misrepresentation and technicalities.
The only difference between those charges is degree, and you use this to completely overlook the intent of my statement, which is that even the best of intentions will not absolve that person of having to take responsibility for their actions, and that remains fact.
@SexedUpAtheist Sure, they have to take responsibility for their actions. But this is where your analogy breaks down: the drunk driver who hits someone causes injury or death to another person. The woman having an abortion does not.
@SexedUpAtheist you have to actually make an analogy that stands strong, not just pronounce it so. I showed where your analogy fell apart, so telling me that it's standing strong doesn't help you a bit.
@roentgen571 The problem is that you're essentially a brick wall, and I'm banging my head against it in an attempt to break through. Having just come to the conclusion that this is ineffective, I will cease any further attempts to do so.
@SexedUpAtheist that's not true, the difference is one of kind, not degree. That is, killing someone with intent is different than killing someone by accident. And "taking responsibility" doesn't enter into this, since having an abortion instead of an unwanted child is "taking responsibility" for their actions.
@roentgen571 It's still killing somebody, and it still require one to take responsibility for having killed somebody. Killing an unborn child is not taking responsibility for their actions: it is relegating responsibility to the unborn child.
@SexedUpAtheist "unborn child" is as much an oxymoron as "legal murder" is. No one is killed in an abortion, because there's no person involved. The embryo doesn't have a brain capable of self-awareness and rational thought, it doesn't have any awareness, it has no memories, it has no identity, it has nothing. An acorn is not an oak tree, a ball of yarn is not a sweater, and an embryo is not a person.
@SexedUpAtheist And saying "it can't be considered against the mother's will unless her life is threatened or she was forced into sexual intercourse" is just flat stupid. The fact that she is seeking an abortion in the first place is a pretty strong argument that it is there against her will. Does she want this embryo in her womb? No? Then it is there against her will. She didn't have sex with the intention of being pregnant, and even if she did, she has the right to change her mind.
@roentgen571 Suggesting that she has the right to change her mind is flat stupid.
Unless she was forced to engage in the act of procreation, then she must be considered a willing participant who has full knowledge of the potential consequences of her actions (pregnancy), and should be required to take responsibility for her actions without being allowed to resort to killing the fetus and justifying it with flawed arguments that do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
"she must be considered a willing participant who has full knowledge of the potential consequences of her actions (pregnancy), and should be required to take responsibility for her actions" Agreed. No more sex unless it is for procreation. Good luck enforcing that.
"resort to killing the fetus " Her body, her choice. Women are not incubators.
@sardeth Nice straw man, sarcastically agreeing with an argument I never made and then pointing out a flaw in aforementioned unspoken argument, while at the same time ignoring the valid points in the argument that I did make.
Again, her choice was made the moment she engaged in the act of procreation... and, barring unforeseen circumstances, all woman are technically walking "incubators" in that they all possess the reproductive organs necessary to carry a human child to full term.
@SexedUpAtheist I can't believe I'm reading this. Someone has sex without intending to get pregnant. They use birth control, say. But it doesn't work, and they get pregnant. According to you, this person who did not have sex with the intention of getting pregnant, who in fact use birth control to avoid getting pregnant--must be considered a "willing participant" in their pregnancy. They're a willing participant, even as they tell their doctor they want an abortion. Barking mad.
@SexedUpAtheist except it doesn't. someone willing to have a baby doesn't attempt to have an abortion. If they are trying to abort, they're obviously not "willing" to be pregnant. Saying a woman who is trying to abort "must" be considered to be a willing participant in her pregnancy is simply insane. Words MEAN things, man.
@roentgen571 Words have different meanings in different context, so please quit blathering incessantly on this point that you can't possibly make to any reasonable, logical person. Thank you.
@SexedUpAtheist in what context does "willing" include someone who is trying their best to avoid what they're supposedly "willing" to do? Please, I would just love to know.
@SexedUpAtheist in other words, you don't have an answer. Someone seeking an abortion is self-evidently not "willing to have a baby." If they were willing to have a baby, they wouldn't be asking for an abortion. You can continue to insist that this is the case, and look retarded, or you can explain how A equals not-A, or you can say "I made a mistake, sorry, the woman's obviously not willing to have a baby." Your choice, sparky.
@roentgen571 I don't have an answer that you like: big difference.
If they weren't willing to have a baby, they wouldn't engage in sexual intercourse, because to do so is to risk that possibility.
Thanks for the choice, but I'll go with option 3: continue to repeat this fact, and watch with amusement as you continue with your wild semantic masturbation. Oh, and lol @ sparky.
@SexedUpAtheist except that accepting the risk is not the same as accepting the outcome. This has been pointed out to you several times, and you refuse to address it. You risk murder by walking on the bad side of town. Does that mean you accept being murdered if someone shoots you? You're okay with that? You want to be murdered when you walk on the wrong side of town?
@roentgen571 I don't walk on the wrong side of town, because the risk of being murdered is unacceptable to me. If you decide the risk is worth it, and you're murdered, good luck with not accepting the outcome.
@SexedUpAtheist To continue, this statement of yours is essentially the same as saying that a skiier with a broken leg is willing to have a broken leg because he knew that could happen when he went skiing. The fact that he accepted the risk does not mean he's voluntarily breaking his leg. Nor does it mean that he should just accept having a broken leg as "taking responsibility for his actions" instead of taking steps to fix that broken leg.
I'm saying that a person who goes skiing knows that a potential outcome of skiing is bodily injury, yet determines that this is an acceptable risk for the payoff of the excitement/fun/etc of skiing. When he injures his leg, he acknowledges that he accepted the risk and its consequences.
Of course he should take steps to protect himself and his broken leg: just like the woman should take steps to care for herself and her newly created offspring.
@SexedUpAtheist ...or take steps to prevent any offspring from being created, such as having an abortion.
And so I take it that you agree that the skiier wasn't willing to have a broken leg, even though he knowingly risked doing so. Great! Now you just need to come to grips with the fact that the woman doesn't willingly become pregnant, even though she knowingly risks becoming so.
@roentgen571 Seriously? You are either completely disingenuous, or dense.
The skiier WAS willing to potentially have a broken leg, that's the whole idea behind accepting the risk of a potential negative consequence. Get it? Let me simplifiy it for you, just to make sure:
Unga. Me want ski. Me know me might get hurt. Me ok with might get hurt so me can ski. Ski so fun, worth risk might get hurt!
If you can't comprehend it at that level, then there is no hope for you at all.
@SexedUpAtheist He was willing to RISK having a broken leg. That's not the same as willing to have his leg broken! I RISK being murdered every day, that doesn't mean I'm willing to be murdered! The woman had sex knowing she was RISKING getting pregnant. That doesn't mean she's willing to get pregnant! Just like knowing the risk of breaking a leg doesn't mean the skiier should just accept having a broken leg, the woman isn't obligated to just accept being pregnant as the result of the risk.
@roentgen571 Semantics. It's really all you've got. The point was, is, and will be that if you take a risk of a negative consequence, and that negative consequence occurs, you take responsibility for that negative consequence.
However, killing an unborn child is not the same as mending a broken leg... well, unless you're a sociopath. It'd be more like the skier having the broken leg amputated instead of having it mended, which wouldn't make any sense at all. Just saying.
@SexedUpAtheist Sure. And "taking responsiblity" for that "negative consequence" might just mean having an abortion. Which is entirely acceptable, since no person is being harmed by doing so. Something that MAY ONE DAY be a person is prevented from growing, but this is true any time any sort of birth control is used, even abstinence.
@roentgen571 I will concede that the "morning after" pill is a viable alternative if taken soon after sexual intercourse, as it is similar to the woman's body simply flushing a fertilized egg that fails to attach to the womb... but your suggestion that she has the right to change her mind, presumably at any time, is abhorrent.
@roentgen571 Your question is ignorant and irrelevant. The difference between the morning after pill and, say, a partial birth abortion are quite obvious to anybody of even average intelligence.
@roentgen571 I know what you think, which is why I suggested that you re-evaluate your priorities.
Also, you're much mistaken when you imply that all of the GOP candidates support Obama's actions: they don't. Ron Paul has been quite outspoken against this bill, and that you aren't aware of this tells me that you don't take the time to become well-informed on all points of view, perhaps because of your obvious bias.
@SexedUpAtheist okay, you're right. They all agree with Obama on the NDAA *AND* they're all pro-life, except for Ron Paul, who is simply pro-life. Which, as I've said before, is a dealbreaker when it comes to a politician for me. I won't vote for one who supports making abortion illegal, or restricting its availability. If Obama signs the NDAA bill, I won't be voting for him, either.
@SexedUpAtheist CRACK And the Godless heathen sends a screamer towards the right field waallll and it is outta here ladies & gentleman. Man did he ever get a hold of that!
Start in the K section of the parking lot if your looking for that ball kids.
@mperhaps I did NOT vote for Obama, BUT NO WAY would I vote for FOX'S idio-err darlings McCain with a pinhead hanging off each arm, Palin on one arm and Fiorina on the other. For all those people pointing the finger at - mperhaps you should have known better about Obama. YOU KNEW HE WAS in bed with big business, HE CAME FROM DALEY LAND. And what did he do back last January? He appointed Dick Daley's brother Bill to his cheif of staff. YOU ALL DID IT. Election is coming don't screw it up again.
What constitutes a terrorist? Is an OWS protester a terrorist?
69Tuscany 1 week ago
@69Tuscany protest is considered low level terrorism
busterhyman21 1 week ago
America is becoming an increasingly scary place. The british used laws like this in Ireland, lead to some horrific stuff. For anyone interested i suggest you look into the Guildford Four. Americans be afraid
VanSleeven1985 1 week ago
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure about the language in this bill... but I read it and when I read:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States."
Doesn't that mean, that US citizens and people in the US are exempt? I thought it was only a military/foreign bill and not a domestic bill...???
tophu1021 2 weeks ago
The fake left/right paradigm is so obvious in this country.
MrSammo1 2 weeks ago
I can't understand how some people ONLY get their Political news from Fox. They've misinformed SO MANY people since 2008. It's beyond obvious to me that they don't care about anything but making Obama look bad. They couldn't care less if their "facts" are lies.
ramone2185 2 weeks ago
@ramone2185: Yeah, but here's the royal tragedy: THE SIGNING OF THE NDAA WAS THE PERFECT PIECE TO USE AGAINST OBAMA. It's both horrific and true, and as you can see, Fox didn't even lift a finger.
colBoh 1 week ago
Hands down this is the most outrageous decision Obama has made and I am very unhappy with it! I don't know what the Hell he's thinking! You don't GET a more blatant disregard for civil liberties than this!
And what surprises me even more is Fox's complacency! I mean this would've been the ONE time I could've gotten behind Fox's outrage and I get nothing from them! Where the fuck is there Obama bashing when it actually matters?! Fuck this bill!
FrankLightheart 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my story"TIFFANY LEBOUEF SEEKS JUSTICE". I have documents to prove my innocence yet no one wants to even acknowledge it. My life has been destroyed.
Look up PRISON STOCKS....very lucrative....WHO ARE THE INVESTORS???
I HOPE NOT THE JUDGES AND POLITICIANS.......
joanarc1111 2 weeks ago
Funny how everyone in Washington, with a few exceptions, is a neoconservative now. It's not that suprising though considering neither party is that different anyway. Obama is worse than Bush because of when he is President; everything has already been predetermined for him to do, so he will look worse, especially because, as a candidate, he emphasized the very opposite to what Bush did.
TheDirknad 1 month ago
Remember when people claimed 9/11 attacks were done because America is free? Well, they fixed that problem, didn't they? Americans... always complaining, lol.
TheSngcoach 1 month ago
I am constantly reminded why I subscribed to this channel. I can't say I can remember a single video wherein I disagreed with you. Now I'm waiting for that ONE vid where I do. XD
LithiumLogica 1 month ago in playlist ACLU related videos
Bush...then Obama. As The Who sang "the new boss is the same as the old boss". Funny how so-called progressives still worship and suck Obamas dick. They are egaging in celebrity worship. The first black president!!!! OH!!! He can do no wrong - hes so honest and sincere. Right, actually what hes done is even go farther than the Patriot Act - Obama is actually worse than Bush. Dumbass liberals.
TThirdplaneTT 1 month ago
@TThirdplaneTT
Try tell Obama's sycophants that. He won a peace prize for his rhetoric. Then bombed more countries than Bush. Rendition continued and he didn't bend on Israeli settlements. He is a joke.
trollfinger 1 month ago
@trollfinger Oh it's so sad. Obama sings a few words from an Al Green song and sales jump 490%. A bunch of YouTubers went over to that ABC clip and tried to smack some sense into those sheeple.
DaRyteJuan 4 weeks ago
This is why 9/11 was a scam, now terrorism is the excuse for the government to capture anyone who opposes them, anyone who rebels for our rights and freedom, and the worst part is that those people will be presented to you as traitors/terrorists.
"Freedom would be meaningless without security at home and in the streets".
This added to SOPA and we are mere puppets in their hands, no truth will be published by free independent media, no sharing of ideas and opinions...
This is oppression
Shallafy 1 month ago
It's the fucking McCarthy era again... except, instead of Communism being the bogeyman, it's now Terrorism. The owners of America have seen their dream realised; the ability to lock anyone up at any time for any reason. They must be wetting their pants.
FantasmaBAnco 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all know once they have the power, they will never give it up.
waxcmill 1 month ago in playlist ACLU related videos
This has been flagged as spam show
We all know once they have the power, they will never give it up.
waxcmill 1 month ago in playlist ACLU related videos
We all know once they have the power, they will never give it up.
waxcmill 1 month ago in playlist ACLU related videos
I am disapointed that Obama has been unable to achieve the best for your country, although he has raised Americas standing in the eyes of the world after the last, cough, debacle, he has been unable to carry through with much that was anticipated after he was elected, seeing the candidates you guys have to vote on in the next election I must say I feel for you guys. Remember in the absence of good governance one must choose the lesser of two weevils.
BraniusBalki 1 month ago in playlist ACLU related videos
I want to know, form where do they think they are drawing this authority?
darkblood626 1 month ago
I have a good idea; lets call the FBI and tell them that we suspect our representatives of being terror suspects. Then we can replace them and reverse the law.
crackerkiller89 1 month ago 37
@crackerkiller89
You know what's crazy about that joke.. it might be a real solution. El oh el Honestly, if we could find the correct way to phrase it and correct time and place to enact our righteous vengeance, we could ACTUALLY do that.
CRUSH3Rdlux 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everytime ObamaNation takes a shit, he uses the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to WIPE HIS ASS. But what would you expect a follower of Satan the Anti-Christ himself to do as a enemy of freedom, liberty, humanity. If you want you can turn me in for Hate Speech or a violation of NDAA. Heck i will supply you my name, address and phone number! Then we will see if the NDAA is what we all fear when I am arrested!
bmcclure0561dad 1 month ago
Here's a thought: For those old enough to remember, can you imagine Richard Nixon with these new powers? Here's an even scarier thought: What about the president eight or ten administrations from now? Who is s/he? and will these powers be used to vanquish all political opponents and challengers? Will people be "blackmailed" into submission in order to free their loved ones from the "American Archipelago"?
hawkeyeDJ 1 month ago 18
Those who want to say that Fox News "Straight reporting" with a spin is the equivalent of MSNBC's news "analysis and editorial commentary" are way off the mark. Comparing Hannity to Maddow is far more realistic.
hawkeyeDJ 1 month ago
ron paul 2012. prepare fr ron paul or prepare for WW3
teedonster2 1 month ago
when rachel maddow is giving a more complete news report than your station, you know you are in trouble
ihatealigators 1 month ago
I like this video, but you neglected to mention one thing:
Just how incredibly broad and poorly defined the term "Terrorist" is in terms of US Defense. Do you know, for example, that you can be considered a Terrorist if you possess a firearm, or your pantry contains more than six days of food?
As a Canadian, I have less to worry about, but if I were you people, I'd start IMMEDIATELY working on Impeaching Obama, and every single congressman and senator who voted for that bill. ALL OF THEM!
Etimos 1 month ago 2
After assassinating an American anything Obama says about human rights is useless rhetoric. I also remember Freedom watch talking about this for ten minutes on FOX Business. Other than the MSNBC being better than FOX thing (sorry they are both fairly biased, I like CSPAN for a reason) I completely agree with you on this video. Right down to wondering why people don't make politicians pay for this type of action.
BillyJoe1305 1 month ago
@BillyJoe1305 I wouldn't say that MSNBC and FOX are on an equal level of biased deceit but MSNBC sure seems like they're trying...
politico92 1 month ago
LiberalViewer, this indefinite detention bill seems facially unconstitutional based on my reading of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. How can Obama defend signing this in light of that ruling?
AngrySkeptic 1 month ago
Stop defending Obama.
bytedisorder 1 month ago
Ever notice that earlier this year, hacking became legally considered an Act of War. Aka hackers are terrorists. So with SOPA going into effect which basically tries to get people to hack. This seems all bad
payokat333 1 month ago
@liberalviewer Doesn't the constitution prohibit congress from passing laws that will infringe on rights that are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights? I don't know much about the law, but it seems as though this specific prevision would require a constitutional amendment to be defensible in court.
cyxgun 1 month ago in playlist Obama related videos
@cyxgun yes, this should be considered governmental misconduct and the offenders -- those that voted yes -- should be charge as such. Then they CAN stand for trial.
bodidarma505 1 month ago
@liberalviewer Freedom watch with judge Andrew Napolitano every weekday at 8pm on the Fox bussiness network check it out for NDAA stories
iamsean90 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
muslims are used as a pawn in order to control civil rights and the only way to control civil rights is to orchastrate S11, whereby governments create an atmosphere for the need for increased security. This is a scary thing as anyone on a whim can acuse you of terriosm and imprision you for the term of your natural life. This is scary because any crazed politician with an agenda can acuse you
MrsFreshMorning 1 month ago
@alvisc2002 lol i wear my ron paul tin foil tshirt everywhere i go!
pictureBigger 1 month ago
What difference does this law make? Gov already does this. Wait til martial law is official. All our doors will be kicked in.
pictureBigger 1 month ago
I just called Senator Levin's office and asked if this law allows for the indefinite detention - without trial - of U.S. citizens. His office told me that the law was amended by #1456 to NOT CHANGE existing law regarding detentions.
Ralphdraw3 1 month ago
Even if you think this bill does everything the alarmists say it does, why is all the blame being put on Obama? The congress passed the NDAA with a VETO proof majority. Nothing he could do except issue a signing statement, which Obama did, and it clarifies his position. Obama's position, and many other legal expert's positions, are that the NDAA does not permit indefinite detention of US Citizens.
GrandpaCl 2 months ago
Not you too? ACLU is garbage. If you go to the lawfare blog they do a much better job of explaining why this bill is does not allow the President to indefinitely detain citizens, there is an exemption. READ THE BILL PEOPLE. People in the media, aren't there to inform, they are there to scare you, get ratings, and get money.
GrandpaCl 2 months ago
Gestapo by anyother name is still Gestapo....unlimited . uncheck power.
LSRochon 2 months ago
Yeah!! NDAA!! Obama 2012!! lol.
fake left/fake right!!
and anyone who votes for ron paul is a crazy "kook"
alvisc2002 2 months ago
To your first question, if they value and uphold the Constitution as the should, the judges will strike down this bill. That said, I need only look to the PATRIOT Act to find the disappointing answer.
HimesInu 2 months ago in playlist Obama related videos
talk about the enemy expatriaton act !!!
people could be revoqued of their rights as american citizens!!!!
heavytransit 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
YOU TUBE SEARCH THESE:
*Carl Levin on NDAA 'Obama Admin insisted on the contents'
*Obama Insisted on Indefinite Detention of Citizens
Maddow mentions in all her NDAA clips that Obama threatened to veto it if it contains the content - the American citizens & legal residents of the US.
HE IS THE ONE WHO INSISTED IT TO BE IN IT!
He says one thing & then does another.
Don't be fooled by Obama.
Senator Carl Levin said on video that Obama threatened to veto it if that content is not in it.
KimInLosAngeles 2 months ago
Comment removed
manaen100 2 months ago
Wow it passed. Just lost a lot of respect of Obama, but I'd better not say much or they will arrest me. 2012 Fascism is back in style!
RottingCorpse100 2 months ago
I hate many of Ron Paul's policies. But it is exactly this kind of legislation (the NDAA) that is the kind of thing he fought against in the past. He publicly called it the establishment of martial law in the US and he would veto it as president. I'll probably vote for him because I hate him less than I hate the rest - Mittama Robomney (same person) or any of the other morons that wouldn't even place in a running. How did South Park put it? The choice is between a douche and crap sandwich?
generationalist 2 months ago
It got passed yesterday, we are fucked
joshua7420 2 months ago
well we're fucked
orangeluva56 2 months ago
Question 1: No, the supreme court has 5 to 4 in favor of hard right conservative fascism. This law will go unopposed by the supreme court.
Question 2: Congress has an 8% approval rating and we have no one to step up in either party to take the populist position. When you're a lying shill and your only competition is other lying shills, you're the lying shill with name recognition. That's why they don't pay a political price.
Russlem 2 months ago
As always, thank you LiberalViewer, for the lucid observations. Until a majority of Americans begin practicing non-violent civil disobedience against this corrupt, corporation-run government little will change. For years now we have watched and read reports about how biased our government has become and yet so few are willing to upset their little "life cubicle" to bring about change. We are all passively sitting by and watching as our country is taken over by looters.
BillGoose1313 2 months ago
The media is owned by a small group of rich moguls. every facet of it is scripted and vetted. just won't be reported. The Big O constitutional scholar, just keeps cranking out more unconstitutional legislation. it's not by coincidence either.
Justice4all311 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist
I disagree with Dr Paul on foreign policy. The other domestic issues I concur for the most part, but I admit his isolationism is a big buzzkill. It distracts me from his other well-known positions because he has said some unfortunate and discontended things about Israel, in particular.
You may disagree, but I find them insulting -- many on our side do. Just my opinion.
conservativesaiyan 2 months ago
@conservativesaiyan Ron Paul is not an isolationist: he is a non-interventionist. Two completely different things.
You'll have to be more specific about these statements Ron Paul has said that you find insulting: the only statements I recall support Israel's sovereignty, their right to defend themselves, and to maintain open trade with them, while avoiding entangling alliances and financial aid with them (or other nations for that matter). Less insulting and more astute imo.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Support Ron Paul.
Less government spending, less taxation to American Citizens, a budget plan that works.
This man has been fighting for your personal freedom and the separation of congress from big business for years. He stands against draconian bills like SOPA, NDAA and the Patriot Act.
He has fought against the war on drugs, the foreign wars, and corporate bail outs.
Vote for liberty this year. Vote for real change.
Thumb up and spread the message!
RapsAlive 2 months ago
As a European, the route the US have taken over the last decade or decade and a half is extremely scary. It's like you are falling behind and you know it and any day now you will conclude that it is better not to have a world society at all than to have one where you are not the obvious go-to powerhouse and blow shit to kingdom come.
Please get your heads out of the clouds or sand respectively and sort things out.
Sincerely Europe.
tanekki 2 months ago
@tanekki Europeans really need to get your own head out of the clouds. Europe is in a worse condition than the US. Economically many European nations are already having to receive bail outs, where as America added 2.7 Million jobs this year (it's slow but not in a recession like many Europeans). Also, Europeans don't even elect EU leaders and most also never got a referendum. Europe and America need to BOTH get their act together.
AmzitheSoldier 1 month ago
@AmzitheSoldier Europe is not worse off, really. Also the European issues now are to a large extent caused by the US banks breaking the world economy. Now, I'm not saying Europe is all that and something everyone should strive to be. It just is not as fucked in the ass by conservatism as the US is. Yet. We do not directly elect EU leaders, but the EU is not our government, either. It is a union between countries. We elect our own leaders whom in turn elect EU leaders.
tanekki 1 month ago
@tanekki Yes, as of right now Europe is in a worse place. The 2008 recession was largely caused by USA, right now Europe is doing bad because of it's own problems like debt. Conservatism is good economically (at least when they co-operate), but socially it is horrible. The EU has made 18,917 Legislative acts (which are mainly regulatory and not budgetary) to which the members of the EU follow.. It's still not democratic.
AmzitheSoldier 1 month ago
@AmzitheSoldier Well Europe isn't a single entity in the way the US is. Parts are worse off. Others are not. I'd still say the euro is in better shape now than the usd was in -08. Conservatism isn't good economically, imho. And of those acts the vast majority is already part of the local legislation of all member nations. Also the indivudial nations can override them. That is rare though. I agree the system is bad, though.
tanekki 1 month ago
@AmzitheSoldier When will the USA have a budget? It is now well over 400 days without a budget. Can you run your household that way?
ownersedge 1 month ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@SexedUpAtheist Personally, our candidates suck. I'm the new generation so I want new blood. We need new blood. Our field is often tenuous and tedious but is what we got so I'll support whoever wins the nomination. But your choice is as good or better than mine.
There are two things certain in life: Taxes and Power.
conservativesaiyan 2 months ago
@conservativesaiyan I can agree with you on most of the candidates available, but I'm not exactly sure how you would justify saying that Ron Paul sucks.
Is he perfect? Of course not: nobody is.
Does he offer the best solution to our current problems? As far as I can determine, he does. He's offering real cuts to the budget, real solutions to our foreign policy issues, and of all of the candidates, his offers are backed by real consistency that has been proven over time.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
don't like Fox News Channel, so I call it Fox Clown Channel.
I think of Fox talking heads as clowns, but I do respect Judge Andrew Napolitano.
He has been covering this detention bill SEVERAL TIMES since several weeks ago.
Judge Napolitano deserves some credit for this.
You Tube search & watch his clip that was uploaded on November 30:
Federal Terror Tactics : Rand Paul : Judge Napolitano
KimInLosAngeles 2 months ago
Comment removed
KimInLosAngeles 2 months ago
Please don't tell me Ron Paul is the answer...
Oh crap, here it comes...
conservativesaiyan 2 months ago
@conservativesaiyan Feel free to tell us of a viable alternative.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@conservativesaiyan Your right Ron Paul is unelectable he encourages people to think for themselves, encourages people to work towards reducing all types of dependency on others. Can you imagine? Have you ever heard anything so un-American? Ron Paul has a habit of exposing phantom fears that don't actually exist. Last election Paul had more support from retired veterans than all the others COMBINED Alas standing on ones own 2 feet can be frightening & so he will never be Pres
mperhaps 2 months ago
answer to question: NO; the courts are bought out about as much as congress is.
thecrooksareinoffice 2 months ago
Im new to your show but you should check out Democracynow . org , (the war and peace report) they are way more liberal and in-depth then MSNBC
thecrooksareinoffice 2 months ago
you have a good arguments but the fox bashing really weakensyour story
jdfolkerts 2 months ago
Liberty or security. Choose one.
madhillick 2 months ago
@madhillick
Air or water. Choose one.
napornik 2 months ago
@napornik I don't get it. Air and water aren't mutually exclusive.
madhillick 2 months ago
My my look at all the confused Obama supporters. You guys were all dancing in the streets when your slick smooth talking Harvard boy got elected. You were so excited, you just could wait for him to implement some of that hope & change. WELL HERE TIS Go'on now, get up there an get yourself a biiggg helping of change And you still dont see it. Your blind While your Chocolate Jesus takes all of your liberties away, what do you do? WHAT DO ALL OF YOU DO? You complain about fox Unfucking believable
mperhaps 2 months ago
@mperhaps bitch, shut up. You think that finger pointing is working out? What the fuck are your big solutions? You think bush did better? Our presidents since about Mr. Ronald have all been puppets, our system isn't working and hasn't worked for a while! Grow up dick head!!!!!!!
aquabound6161 2 months ago
@aquabound6161 So what you're saying is:You voted for Obama didn't you wateretainer6161 and it feels like you got a little sand in your couch? Well these things happen. Don't throw me in with the rest of these partisan cheerleaders. Foreign policy & corporate accountability are indistinguishable between G.W. & Obama. TARP however can be placed largely on the lap of Clinton's Grahmn/Bliley act that snuffed the protection we enjoyed from the glass/steghal act 1933 Hope&Change baby
mperhaps 2 months ago
@aquabound6161
Tsk.tsk.tsk.
The system is not broken. It was built this way.
napornik 2 months ago
@mperhaps Obama is bad. The GOP and their cheerleaders Fox News are far, far worse.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 You're wrong: Obama is just as bad as all but one of the GOP candidates. If you disagree, then please explain why Obama didn't veto the National Defense Authorization Act? I know Obama said that the Constitution was an "imperfect document", but only now do I see that he was referring to the part where it confers freedom, rights and personal liberties to U.S. citizens.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Sorry, but although I feel the NDAA is abhorrent and I will NOT be voting for Obama unless he vetoes it, I disagree that he's as bad as the GOP candidates. Just the fact that he's pro-choice puts him over all of them. BTW, Ron Paul's a nut. Just sayin'.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 No offense, but I would suggest that you consider re-evaluating your priorities a bit if you honestly think that being against expecting a woman to take responsibility for her choices outweighs taking away every U.S. citizen's rights.
I used to consider myself pro-choice, too.. but then I realized that the 'choice' is made before the pregnancy occurs, and that the woman should be held accountable, and expected to take responsibility for the consequences of her actions.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist What I honestly think is that either action (outlawing abortion or making it legal to imprison Americans indefinitely without showing good reason to a judge first) is an absolutely atrocious position to take. Unfortunately, the GOP candidates all support both, while Obama only supports one.
"The woman should be held accountable"--yeah, because pregnancy should be a punishment for behavior you personally dislike. How is having an abortion not taking responsibility?
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 (continued) this position of yours makes as much sense to me as denying medical care to someone who breaks a leg while skiing because he knew what the risks were, and he ought to take responsibility for his actions.
The fact is, the embryo is not a person, and even if it were, that does not give it the right to use the woman's body against her will. Period. I'm a bit of an absolutist when it comes to abortion rights--being pro-life is a dealbreaker for me re: politicians.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Behavior I dislike? Considering that I enjoy sex, and marriage isn't a requirement for that, your statement is a straw man.
Murder is never an acceptable means of taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Your analogy is flawed. The man is not attempting to engage in legalized murder in order to take responsibility for his actions, and nobody wants to deny the woman the right to medical care.
(continued next post)
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist the analogy isn't flawed, because no one is being murdered in an abortion. "Legalized murder" is an oxymoron, it's a meaningless statement.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 (continued from last post)
The fact is, the fetus is a person in that they are the known beginning of an individual human life, it does have a prima facie right to the mother's body, and it cannot be considered against the mother's will unless her life is threatened by the pregnancy or she was forced into sexual intercourse. Period.
I would suggest "Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist", written by Francis J. Beckwith, for a new perspective.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist You're mistaken, the embryo is not a person (it's not a fetus until relatively late in development), it has no functional brain, no capacity for self-awareness and rational thought, no memories, no nothing. It's as much a "person" as a tomato plant is. Yes, it's the beginning of a person, and someday may well become a person, but it is not a person now. And no, it doesn't have a right to use the woman's body if she doesn't want it.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 You're the one that is mistaken. Unlike a tomato plant, an embryo possesses 46 human chromosomes passed down from the mother and father, and begins developing a human brain, heart, spinal cord, etc. in the 5th week.
I clearly stated that it is where the human life begins, and yes, it does have the right to use the woman's body: she gave up her right to personal autonomy the moment she engaged in the act of procreation, knowing the potential consequences of her actions.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist I'm not mistaken. Every cell in my body has human chromosomes, does that make them all people? And yes, those organs begin developing--key word there is "begin." The brain has no ability for organized higher-level activity until well into the 3rd trimester at the earliest. Having a spine or a heart doesn't make you a person--having a functional brain does.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Keep playing the semantics game, I find it amusing.
You are mistaken. Yes, it makes them human cells, belonging to a human. You won't find human cells in a tomato plant, nor will you find human cells in a dolphin which, by the way, manages to possess a functional brain yet somehow manages to not be human: I guess that's how they justify slaughtering non-human animals by the truck/boatload.
So, yeah, please try again.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist so human cells are people? you completely missed the point, which is that it takes more than having 46 chromosomes from a father and mother to be a person. The embryo has 46 chromosomes. So what? So do the cells in my skin, muscles, eyes, etc. The dolphin has a functional brain, but I didn't say it takes a functioning brain to be a person. I said it takes one capable of self-awareness and rational thought.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Bullshit. You said that a functioning brain is required to be a person. Sorry, but you don't get to just pretend that you didn't, especially when it's right there for everybody to see.
Chimpanzees are capable of self-awareness and rational thought, yet they're not humans. Care to discard this, and come up with a new defining characteristic to justify your viewpoint?
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist You keep saying "humans" and I keep saying "persons." Yes, if a chimpanzee demonstrates self-awareness and rational thought, then it should have the same sorts of protections for its life that we do. If human life does not demonstrate such (as, say, a human kidney in a bucket of ice waiting for transplant), then no, killing it should not be considered in the same league as killing a thinking person.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I love it! You're bending over backwards trying to make a case, and failing miserably. A human kidney is not human life: nice try, though.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist What about a human kidney does not make it "human life"?
What makes it not a PERSON is the lack of a brain capable of self-awareness and rational thought. In all other measures, it's "human life".
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 You have no valid point, and so I'm not going to address this. Any future statements in which you fail to make a valid point will receive the same treatment.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist LOL in other words, the best argument you can come up with is "Is not! Is NOT! IS NOT!!!!" Sexedup, you're out of your league, son. I bid you good day, and, as a parting gift, I'll let you have the last word. Go ahead, pronounce victory and tell me what an uninformed, biased idiot I am.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I accept your formal declaration of defeat, tainted as it is by your poor sportsmanship.
Surely, though, you must have known that this would be the inevitable outcome, considering your inability to present a valid argument, and your heavy reliance on various argumentative fallacies ranging from straw man to ad hominem.
Perhaps you will learn from this experience, and be better prepared with more efficient weapons in any future engagements.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Oh, well, since you're going to lie about what I said, I'll just take back my decision to let you have the last word. My arguments were valid, your inability to counter them and just flat denial of their legitimacy may pass for "argumentation" at the middle school you flunked out of, but they don't fly in the real world. Sorry you can't do better-I'd wish you better luck next time, but since you're already convinced this poor performance was a victory, you'll need more than luck.
roentgen571 1 month ago
@roentgen571 Oh, what a surprise: your word(s) have very little meaning.
I never lied, and your arguments were shoddy. Not my fault that you have trouble dealing with your own shortcomings.
This was a victory for me, and it is sweetened by your tears: cry more, please.
SexedUpAtheist 1 month ago
@SexedUpAtheist You did lie, as I did not offer a declaration of defeat. Quite the contrary, anyone who's been following this one-sided argument has seen me lay out points you've been unable to refute by anything other than shouting "Is not!" and then declaring that sufficient. Cry more? I cry, yes--but my tears are from laughter.
roentgen571 1 month ago
@roentgen571 Your defeat was a foregone conclusion, and I simply assumed that you were trying to "gracefully" bow out.. but I must say that I'm glad (and not surprised) that you feel an overwhelming need to flog a dead horse, for fun and/or profit (all mine), and so return to destroy what little credibility you never actually had, as well as to make a complete fool of yourself for my amusement. By all means: I know you've got a lot more fail left in you to share with the rest of us!
SexedUpAtheist 1 month ago
@SexedUpAtheist I know you clearly stated it. It just doesn't matter. It's "human life" but it's not a person. The cells growing in the skin of my arm are human life, too. They're not people. And sorry, but I disagree--the women does not give up her right to autonomy. And why isn't "having an abortion" a "potential consequence of her actions"? Sorry, but A) the embryo is not a person, B) even if it were, it has no right to stay in the woman's body. Period.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Yes, and if I were to rip the skin of your arm off, I'd be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for it. Funny how that works, isn't it? Your skin has more rights than a fetus.
You can disagree to your heart's content, and apologize profusely for not having a sound argument to support what amounts to your unsubstantiated opinion, but it won't change anything. Period.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist you wouldn't be arrested for killing skin cells, you'd be arrested for assault and battery (and probably mayhem) on me. Thanks for your permission to disagree, but I'll pass on your invitation to apologize, since I have nothing to apologize for: my argument's as sound as arguments get; the only unsubstantiated opinion here is yours.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Thank you for clarifying the difference between skin cells and people... and no, your arguments are anything but sound. Please learn the definition of a word before you apply it (incorrectly) to something.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist lol...you should talk!
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Funny how fetus fetishists continually miss this point. :) Full marks for making a clear argument and a good example.
sardeth 2 months ago
@sardeth Too bad you couldn't follow his example, seemingly only capable of various argumentative fallacies in order to (fail to) make your point. ;)
If a person drinks, knowing alcohol's intoxicating effects, and this person gets behind the wheel of an automobile and proceeds to kill one or more persons in an accident, he cannot rely on his personal autonomy (right to his body) or having no intention of killing anybody as a defense for his actions (killing other people). This is fact.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist You have a real problem with declaring things to be facts when they're not facts at all. Saying there was no intention to hurt anyone is absolutely a defense in drunk driving. It makes the difference between a manslaughter charge and first degree murder.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 You have a real problem with misrepresentation and technicalities.
The only difference between those charges is degree, and you use this to completely overlook the intent of my statement, which is that even the best of intentions will not absolve that person of having to take responsibility for their actions, and that remains fact.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Sure, they have to take responsibility for their actions. But this is where your analogy breaks down: the drunk driver who hits someone causes injury or death to another person. The woman having an abortion does not.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Yes, she does: my analogy stands strong, despite your denial.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist you have to actually make an analogy that stands strong, not just pronounce it so. I showed where your analogy fell apart, so telling me that it's standing strong doesn't help you a bit.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 To save time, let me just throw your own words back at you, and then suggest that you take your own advice.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist No, she doesn't. Your analogy falls to pieces.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Because you say so? xD No, my analogy stands firm. Deal.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Yes, because I say so. Address the problems with your argument, or STFU.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 The problem is that you're essentially a brick wall, and I'm banging my head against it in an attempt to break through. Having just come to the conclusion that this is ineffective, I will cease any further attempts to do so.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist that's not true, the difference is one of kind, not degree. That is, killing someone with intent is different than killing someone by accident. And "taking responsibility" doesn't enter into this, since having an abortion instead of an unwanted child is "taking responsibility" for their actions.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 It's still killing somebody, and it still require one to take responsibility for having killed somebody. Killing an unborn child is not taking responsibility for their actions: it is relegating responsibility to the unborn child.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist "unborn child" is as much an oxymoron as "legal murder" is. No one is killed in an abortion, because there's no person involved. The embryo doesn't have a brain capable of self-awareness and rational thought, it doesn't have any awareness, it has no memories, it has no identity, it has nothing. An acorn is not an oak tree, a ball of yarn is not a sweater, and an embryo is not a person.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 You're an oxymoron.
If I disable your brain functions, then I feel fully justified in aborting you.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I just realized that attempting to disable your brain functions would be redundant.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist And saying "it can't be considered against the mother's will unless her life is threatened or she was forced into sexual intercourse" is just flat stupid. The fact that she is seeking an abortion in the first place is a pretty strong argument that it is there against her will. Does she want this embryo in her womb? No? Then it is there against her will. She didn't have sex with the intention of being pregnant, and even if she did, she has the right to change her mind.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Suggesting that she has the right to change her mind is flat stupid.
Unless she was forced to engage in the act of procreation, then she must be considered a willing participant who has full knowledge of the potential consequences of her actions (pregnancy), and should be required to take responsibility for her actions without being allowed to resort to killing the fetus and justifying it with flawed arguments that do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist
"she must be considered a willing participant who has full knowledge of the potential consequences of her actions (pregnancy), and should be required to take responsibility for her actions" Agreed. No more sex unless it is for procreation. Good luck enforcing that.
"resort to killing the fetus " Her body, her choice. Women are not incubators.
sardeth 2 months ago
@sardeth Nice straw man, sarcastically agreeing with an argument I never made and then pointing out a flaw in aforementioned unspoken argument, while at the same time ignoring the valid points in the argument that I did make.
Again, her choice was made the moment she engaged in the act of procreation... and, barring unforeseen circumstances, all woman are technically walking "incubators" in that they all possess the reproductive organs necessary to carry a human child to full term.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist I can't believe I'm reading this. Someone has sex without intending to get pregnant. They use birth control, say. But it doesn't work, and they get pregnant. According to you, this person who did not have sex with the intention of getting pregnant, who in fact use birth control to avoid getting pregnant--must be considered a "willing participant" in their pregnancy. They're a willing participant, even as they tell their doctor they want an abortion. Barking mad.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Oh, nice, another argumentative fallacy
Your disbelief, your ad hominem "assessment" of my sanity level as well as your verbal gymnastics are all irrelevant: my point remains valid.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist except it doesn't. someone willing to have a baby doesn't attempt to have an abortion. If they are trying to abort, they're obviously not "willing" to be pregnant. Saying a woman who is trying to abort "must" be considered to be a willing participant in her pregnancy is simply insane. Words MEAN things, man.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Words have different meanings in different context, so please quit blathering incessantly on this point that you can't possibly make to any reasonable, logical person. Thank you.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist in what context does "willing" include someone who is trying their best to avoid what they're supposedly "willing" to do? Please, I would just love to know.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 No, you wouldn't. You've had ample opportunity, yet refused to take it.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist in other words, you don't have an answer. Someone seeking an abortion is self-evidently not "willing to have a baby." If they were willing to have a baby, they wouldn't be asking for an abortion. You can continue to insist that this is the case, and look retarded, or you can explain how A equals not-A, or you can say "I made a mistake, sorry, the woman's obviously not willing to have a baby." Your choice, sparky.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I don't have an answer that you like: big difference.
If they weren't willing to have a baby, they wouldn't engage in sexual intercourse, because to do so is to risk that possibility.
Thanks for the choice, but I'll go with option 3: continue to repeat this fact, and watch with amusement as you continue with your wild semantic masturbation. Oh, and lol @ sparky.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist except that accepting the risk is not the same as accepting the outcome. This has been pointed out to you several times, and you refuse to address it. You risk murder by walking on the bad side of town. Does that mean you accept being murdered if someone shoots you? You're okay with that? You want to be murdered when you walk on the wrong side of town?
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I don't walk on the wrong side of town, because the risk of being murdered is unacceptable to me. If you decide the risk is worth it, and you're murdered, good luck with not accepting the outcome.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist To continue, this statement of yours is essentially the same as saying that a skiier with a broken leg is willing to have a broken leg because he knew that could happen when he went skiing. The fact that he accepted the risk does not mean he's voluntarily breaking his leg. Nor does it mean that he should just accept having a broken leg as "taking responsibility for his actions" instead of taking steps to fix that broken leg.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Wrong.
I'm saying that a person who goes skiing knows that a potential outcome of skiing is bodily injury, yet determines that this is an acceptable risk for the payoff of the excitement/fun/etc of skiing. When he injures his leg, he acknowledges that he accepted the risk and its consequences.
Of course he should take steps to protect himself and his broken leg: just like the woman should take steps to care for herself and her newly created offspring.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist ...or take steps to prevent any offspring from being created, such as having an abortion.
And so I take it that you agree that the skiier wasn't willing to have a broken leg, even though he knowingly risked doing so. Great! Now you just need to come to grips with the fact that the woman doesn't willingly become pregnant, even though she knowingly risks becoming so.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Seriously? You are either completely disingenuous, or dense.
The skiier WAS willing to potentially have a broken leg, that's the whole idea behind accepting the risk of a potential negative consequence. Get it? Let me simplifiy it for you, just to make sure:
Unga. Me want ski. Me know me might get hurt. Me ok with might get hurt so me can ski. Ski so fun, worth risk might get hurt!
If you can't comprehend it at that level, then there is no hope for you at all.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist He was willing to RISK having a broken leg. That's not the same as willing to have his leg broken! I RISK being murdered every day, that doesn't mean I'm willing to be murdered! The woman had sex knowing she was RISKING getting pregnant. That doesn't mean she's willing to get pregnant! Just like knowing the risk of breaking a leg doesn't mean the skiier should just accept having a broken leg, the woman isn't obligated to just accept being pregnant as the result of the risk.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Semantics. It's really all you've got. The point was, is, and will be that if you take a risk of a negative consequence, and that negative consequence occurs, you take responsibility for that negative consequence.
However, killing an unborn child is not the same as mending a broken leg... well, unless you're a sociopath. It'd be more like the skier having the broken leg amputated instead of having it mended, which wouldn't make any sense at all. Just saying.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist Sure. And "taking responsiblity" for that "negative consequence" might just mean having an abortion. Which is entirely acceptable, since no person is being harmed by doing so. Something that MAY ONE DAY be a person is prevented from growing, but this is true any time any sort of birth control is used, even abstinence.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Your definition of when it becomes a person differs from mine, hence the argument.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I will concede that the "morning after" pill is a viable alternative if taken soon after sexual intercourse, as it is similar to the woman's body simply flushing a fertilized egg that fails to attach to the womb... but your suggestion that she has the right to change her mind, presumably at any time, is abhorrent.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist So you're okay with killing a "human life" in a woman with one method of abortion, but not with another. I see.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I'm glad you do... oh, wait, that's sarcasm. I see.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist No reply at all. Pretty typical. Explain how the morning after pill is different from any other form of abortion.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@roentgen571 Your question is ignorant and irrelevant. The difference between the morning after pill and, say, a partial birth abortion are quite obvious to anybody of even average intelligence.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@roentgen571 I know what you think, which is why I suggested that you re-evaluate your priorities.
Also, you're much mistaken when you imply that all of the GOP candidates support Obama's actions: they don't. Ron Paul has been quite outspoken against this bill, and that you aren't aware of this tells me that you don't take the time to become well-informed on all points of view, perhaps because of your obvious bias.
SexedUpAtheist 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist okay, you're right. They all agree with Obama on the NDAA *AND* they're all pro-life, except for Ron Paul, who is simply pro-life. Which, as I've said before, is a dealbreaker when it comes to a politician for me. I won't vote for one who supports making abortion illegal, or restricting its availability. If Obama signs the NDAA bill, I won't be voting for him, either.
roentgen571 2 months ago
@SexedUpAtheist CRACK And the Godless heathen sends a screamer towards the right field waallll and it is outta here ladies & gentleman. Man did he ever get a hold of that!
Start in the K section of the parking lot if your looking for that ball kids.
mperhaps 2 months ago
@mperhaps I did NOT vote for Obama, BUT NO WAY would I vote for FOX'S idio-err darlings McCain with a pinhead hanging off each arm, Palin on one arm and Fiorina on the other. For all those people pointing the finger at - mperhaps you should have known better about Obama. YOU KNEW HE WAS in bed with big business, HE CAME FROM DALEY LAND. And what did he do back last January? He appointed Dick Daley's brother Bill to his cheif of staff. YOU ALL DID IT. Election is coming don't screw it up again.
generationalist 2 months ago
I will never vote for the democratic/republican party if this ever passes
ThnkIaA 2 months ago