Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
You're focusing on the wrong thing. Few Christians will call that group Christian. The problem is that he doesn't mention that he was wrong about them never championing religious speech. And while I would like Fox to have that much journalistic integrity, they prefer to see themselves as being opinion-based programs. Few people on TV apologize for their mistakes unless it will cost them something.
O'Reilly don't want compared to the very same people he's referring to as 'crazy.' He has attacked the very same groups as the Phelps have and he knows this. O'Reilly is a walking contradiction.
usually i agree with you but the fact is that they may call them selves a "christan group" Or a"church" but they are not. In fact their prevledge to be called such for tax deductions was revoked. they hide behind the title christan and use it as a get out of jail free card
This group is evil. I am not supporter of bullshit wars but those are OUR Millitary people, freinds, family, real heroes. Those protestors actually have the right to do that but if I were one of those familes being protested, they would not be there for very long. see, we're Americans & we dont need the governments approval for everything we do. because our Constitution says we dont. So, those assholes who make sad ppl exponetially more sad are allowed but there are those who are 'Just'.
although I cant stand FOX and have the HIGHEST disliketatude (my word, dont use) towards orielly, (because they are liars and spin more lies than any other media as well as keep out important information by feeding ppl red herrings - like all other network news orgs do)
your audio REALLY sux and its very simple to keep it level.
I think that what you said has very little backing. All you did was say that it contradicts and mentioned that if you google that, you get links. If i Google hitler loved jews, I bet I get tons of links, does it mean its true? but good job at showing the video of the ACLU with signs that are anti god
BTW im an atheist so I could care less, just wanted to point out that your pointing out skills failed :D
Yeah I got the point, Oreilly says the ACLU is supporting a Crazy Fanatical group and before that they said the ACLU is against religious publication.
Therein there is the problem. Why support a group that makes Christians look bad?
Its kinda like taking that ugly girl to a party so everyone can make fun of her(just woke up, only example i can think of XD)
So honestly, with what is said, their is holes in LiberalBias' whole "Point"
@EsotericSanity No, there aren't, as far as I can see. The point is that Fox News claims the ACLU is against religion, and doesn't support any "civil liberties" of religious people/activity, and yet this video shows that they do.
@EsotericSanity I know that supporting them is wrong. Yeah, you're just completely wrong about all of this, dude. But let's say you're not. You're still forgetting one thing. Westboro isn't the only Christian group that the ACLU has supported.
Get a Life. You should post what those people were saying at the funnerul, then try to defend them! Silly liberalviewer, true to name always loosing focus. Its not about O'reilly or th ACLU. Its about those FAKE religous scum and the money hungry sharks that try to protect them. Open your eyes and and look a little deeper than any liberal view can give you.... you might find the truth.
You are nuts. No one at the ACLU gives a crap about anything but adding to it list of anti-American cases. Illegal immiagration at the forfront. Hell, the ACLU defended the Nazi protesters. The ACLU, in my opinion are a bunch of liberal jerks, who, on occassion, take the right side, just ot be arbitrary.
The ACLU does NOT defend Christian speech on public property! FOX and Bill are absolutely CORRECT on the vile, unprinciples ACLU! Go Bill! You are WRONG. They are CORRECT on the ACLU! They ARE anti-religion! ALL THE WAY.
well I do support their right to free speech, but they should not have the right to invade a funeral of a grieving family of a soldier who's died in war.
I know 1st Amendment protects hate speech not polite speech. but what the WBC does is assault. plus, free speech is protected as long as there is no "clear and present danger"
Yes they are christians, just hardcore old testament ones. Go read Leviticus or Deuteronomy sometime. Noone today would follow these rules. Well not in 'western' nations.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What FOX News falsehood is LiberalViewer alluding to in the title?No falsehood is shown buy the video, just a contradiction.LiberalViewer, if you have evidence of a falsehood then show that instead!
TheRagingLibertarian: "No falsehood is shown buy the video"
No, O'Reilly said the ACLU "opposes all displays of religion on public property" and "attacks judgment based faith." I prove that claim FALSE by showing protesters defended by the ACLU holding signs saying "God Is Your Enemy" which are "displays of religion on public property" and Westboro Baptist is definitely a "judgment based faith." I include O'Reilly on my bias list b/c his show claims to be a "No Spin Zone"
LiberalViewer does show a contradiction in Bill O'Rielly's statements.The Factor is not news, it is news editorial.Bill's fractured opinion on the subject of the ACLU does not prove that FOX News repeatedly spreads misinformation.Inconsistancies in thought do not prove anything other than Bill speaks without thinking sometimes.LiberalViewer's own affiliation to the ALCU shows his where his bias is!If FOX News shows extreme bias, LiberalViewer is not proving it.
I hate the Westboro Baptist Church. I can't deny that. But I also can't deny that they have a constitutional right to spout their shit. You can use your constitutional rights to fight right back against them. I understand the ACLU's stance.
Yea, I'm all for the ACLU, but defending the Westboro Baptist Church is a completely different thing....I know it's freedom of speech, but the WBC is one of the most despicable groups of people...as much as I hate to say this, I think I might have to side with Bill on this one, even if it is a violation of free speech
another 'great O'Reilly video' I personally hate his show, along with Fox News. the best one i've seen is "Bill O'Reilly Gets Owned By Kid" where's a teenager, uses Bill's own book to turn his words again him. Of course, Bill tells him it's out context and all but tells the boy to shut up
Yes I read that. Also a side note, the one person who disagreed wit O'R and used his own book against him was actually well dressed (aka wearing a suit and tie) while the other that O'R supported was just wearing a T-Shirt.
LV- come on, Billo doesn't care about the details, this is a chance to smear the ACLU. So what if it contradicts most things he has been saying about them. Sad to say but you just expect this crap.
This case doesn't help christians it simply hurts people trying to mourn the loss of their loved ones. I am sure the ACLU is not anti religion but defending these crazy's is beyond dumb
So then, let me get this straight. You're saying that it's ok to defend someone's freedoms as long as you agree with the group who is being defended, but if the public doesn't agree with someone's opinion, it shouldn't be defended under the freedoms granted in the constitution? This very sort of thing is the reason the founding fathers wrote those freedoms into the constitution, not to defend popular opinion, but the minority of unpopular ones. If you don't defend all, is it truly freedom?
The ACLU can defend whom ever they want and do. My arguement was never that they shouldn't be defended. However I feel theses crazies should pay for their own lawyers and the ACLU shouldn't waist their resources on them. If they think they are defending christians they are WRONG they are just defending lunatics that pretend to be christian.
Whether you agree with what the WBC says or not is not related to whether or not they have the right to say it. I hate these people with every fiber of my being, but the state of Missouri does not have the right to deny them their right to free speech or assembly. the best thing to do is join one of the many counter-protest groups that follow them and surround them in a circle so the grieving families do not have to be subjected to their hateful displays. That's what I do anyway.
I do almost agree with O'Reilly for this (I can't believe it) but I thought this was poor reporting, A lot of his viewers would understand more if he gave the people protesting more air time because a few seconds seeing any of them and most could have come up with the insane idea themselves. I also don't understand why he wouldn't bring up that they where expressing there opinions on public property and ask his viewers what haveing free speech actually means as he fights so hard against it.
However this is a rare time when I disagree with the ACLU on their position. While I think the Phelps clan has a right to do this on the streets and all that. However, I believe that the right of people to mourn the dead trumps the right of free speech at a funeral. I think its a clear case of free speech clearly being allowed to bring emotional harm to others.
Unfortuneatley, nothing in the constitution prohibits them from doing what they do. Therefore, passing a law banning them from picketing soldiers' funerals strikes a blow to the first ammendment. I would suggest (as I have to others) that you join a counter-protest group.
actually this is the no true scottsman fallacy. we define someone as a doctor when they finish university schooling and obtain a doctorate. we define a christian as someone who follows jesus christ. so any religious nutjob who thinks that his dog is the reincarnated form of jesus and that his dog jesus wants him to kill people is still a christian.
Pharisees didn't claim to be Christian and saying "hateful actions are a sign that they don't truly follow Christ" fails to explain how you can tell who Jesus has forgiven since, as I explained, avoiding all sin (even hate) isn't required to be a Christian. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
While I think that you are dead on about the ACLU not being an anti-ANY RELGION organization, I do think you are using a very broad brush to paint the Westboro Baptists as a Christian group. I think you stand on firmer ground and less confrontational ground if you call them a religious group. An extreme religious group? Yep.
All religions have their extremist arms. We hear about Muslim ones all the time nowadays, but I wouldn't label them as Muslims personally.
As I told YummyDrfood, I notice many people claiming to be Christian don't really follow the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, but perfect obedience isn't required to be a Christian. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use for purposes of this video (and my ACLUFightsForChristians webpage) is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
You did not address my point that "perfect obedience isn't required of Christians" nor have you explained which "deeds" allow you to conclude someone claiming to be Christian isn't really a Christian (which sins wont Jesus forgive?). Again, the definition of "Christian" I used is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Again, can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
YummyDrfood wrote: "To even suggest that the ACLU is defending a Christian organization when they defend WBC is ludicrous"
I notice many claiming to be Christian don't seem to follow Jesus' teachings as I understand them, but perfect obedience isn't required of Christians. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
yeah I don't really consider a group Christian based if they walk around holding signs saying "God is your enemy!" and crazy stuff like that.
so I don't think the fact that the ACLU supporting them counts as supporting a christian or religious group. Maybe "crazy people was a little harsh. but they're not far from it.
See my response to YummyDrfood regarding the definition of "Christian" I use for purposes of this video. Also, for DOZENS more examples of the ACLU defending many different kinds of Christians, see the list of links at:
ACLUFightsForChristians(.)com
Don't forget to take the parentheses out of that web address when pasting it into your browser...
LiberalViewer,Would you condemn O'Reilly if he condemned the ACLU for defending the KKK? Extremism has no borders,particular cause or beliefs. That is why we call it extremism, and call it CRAZY.
lol my 9th grade Eng. teach gave someone ISS for mentioning Harry Potter. Crazy lady. If Harry Potter promots witch craft, then LOTR, and Star Wars is no good. Not to mention 95% of Disney's IP.
the "discipline" was uncalled for, whether it was because of her christian values or not. After hours functions aren't mandatory. So that case is a pathetic attempt to make it look like they are defending christian rights.
I don't understand why Quakers wont even indirectly support the defense of our Nation. I think they take the safety our Nation provides for granted...but that's their choice and that's why this is America.
ACLU site didn't mention what kind of job it was in the article. Sloppy. The law might be a little silly, but it's also very general. I could agree to defend my country by working in a hospital healing wounded casualties as just one of many options
The Westboro Baptist idiots are Democrats. Fred Phelps is a disbarred lawyer (Liberals have been known to love disbarred lawyers like Bill CLinton, Mike Nifong, and Alton Maddox) who ran for Governor as a Democrat. They also hate the military. That's why the ACLU is supporting them.
O'Riley had one of those ACLU assholes on his program to tell him about how they're defending free speech which I believe in also. But if someone I loved died in Iraq and someone held up a sign that said "Thank god" they died, I'd freaking kick their ass, and O'Riley's right. It does call for disturbing the peace. No doubt about it.
Freedom of Speech is more important than your petty emotions get over yourself. I don't support them either but I stand behind freedom of speech! The ACLU is one of the last organizations that will keep this country from turning into a theocracy and state of surveillance.
Petty emotions? WTF??? I heard people on here saying if they ever saw those people, they'd freaking take a gun and SHOOT THEM.
I'm also for Freedom of Speech, but you'd have to be freaking stupid ass to think that protesting dumbass signs like that wouldn't put their lives in danger! Disturbance of pease, asshole! What the HELL about that???
ACLU protects their rights not their idea's. I feel the same way. I think that anyone should be able to say anything they want, even though I might not share their views or even oppose it. But I would support their right to say it! Another classic case of "you support their rights so you support their views" conclusion -_-
Oh really well unlike you i decided to serve in the armed forces and im typen this from Afganastan right now. So im un-AMERICAN? Go drink your star bucks and bitch about how horrible our country is while i go back to fighting to defend it.
The thing is that like you (or so the gov. says), the ACLU is also fights for every American rights and freedoms. And if you feel that protectors of your freedom of speech, and the rights that you also are fighting for; deserves to be shot, then you would be working against your constitution, and hence, be un-American.
Ironic that the "thank god for 9/11" people actively are pretty much people speaking 'judgement based faith'. Matter of fact, that 'judgement' fits in perfectly with the Bible's 'interpretations' of his mercy.
And, ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was not a communist (he was a socialist). Baldwin also famously purged communists from the ACLU in 1939. He also wrote a book called "A new slavery; forced labor: the communist betrayal of human rights." After WW II, no less an anti-communist than MacArthur asked Baldwin to help with civil liberties in Japan.
For conveying thoughtful ideas, I despise Bill O'Reilly's loudmouth style, and I find Bill's logic to be faulty much of the time. (However, like the slapstick shows of the past, it's often fun to watch buffoons.)
To report that this Westboro Baptist Church is Christian is a stretch. It's made up mostly of members of a single family. They exhibit signs of all sorts of neuroses, and they have made certain cherry-picked scriptural verses their "golden calf."
I notice many people who claim to be Christian do not seem to follow the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, but perfect obedience is not a requirement of the religion. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use here is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition of Christian that would exclude the Westboro Baptists?
As a gay man, I've been wronged by minions of misguided Christians (within whatever "my definition" is), but, as unfortunate as all that is, I thought you should know that these Westboro Baptist people really are COMPLETE NUTCASES. Seriously, if we were in pre-Reagan times, they'd probably be involuntarily committed to an asylum.
These people calling themselves Christian is like Gene Hackman calling himself gay. Their saying it doesn't make it credible.
Mormons and Jehovah witnesses' are both legally of the Christian faith belonging to the LDS/ JW denomination. It's impossible to separate true believers from social Christians and fringe groups.
Whether you like Bill O'Reilly or not, he is absolutely correct on this one. Whoever made this video does not understand the establishment clause at all. Also, you cannot say that the aclu defends someones rigth to freedom of religion if they are are trying to remove crosses and such from public places like government buildings schools and cemetaries. The 1st ammendment was put in place to keep the govenment from interfering with religion and to keep it from establising a official state religion
Youre wrong to claim O'Reilly "is absolutely correct" b/c, as I show in my video, O'Reilly falsely claimed the ACLU "opposes all displays of religion on public property" and that the ACLU "attacks judgment based faith." Just looking at the protesters in the video, u can see "displays of religion on public property." And, you'd be hard pressed to find a more "judgment based faith" than Westboro Baptist
"Also, you cannot say that the aclu defends someones rigth to freedom of religion if they are are trying to remove crosses and such from public places like government buildings schools and cemetaries. The 1st ammendment was put in place to keep the govenment from interfering with religion and to keep it from establising a official state religion."
You don't see the contradiction in what you just said?
Promoting religion: Civilians = Fine, the State = Wrong.
It's been I while since I posted so I am not 100% sure, but I believe those sentences were responses and addressing different issues.
What the constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".
No where in that statement does in say that the government cannot display religious symbols, only that the State cannot declare a State sponsored religion.
Look, I cannot help it that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. And IT WAS. Even Thomas Jefferson(the allegedly non-religious deist), wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
Christianity is NOT a state "sponsored" religion. We simply are recognizing our roots.
If Christianity is a state sponsored religion, then why has prayer consistently been disallowed in public schools?? Yet that school district in California said that schools had to provide muslim students a place to pray, and even lets them out of class to do so. Why is it ok for muslims to pray, but not for Christians??
Its because the has an anti-christian agenda. Why would they represent the muslim students in california and fight against prayer in schools??
Maybe he should not have said "all". But the ACLUE cannot not pick up a few cases and make themselves a christian friendly group. That will never happen. What Bill was saying was right, accurate and relevent to the the news story. The ACLU is ok will religion as long as it is liberal enough to teach that killing innocent human life is ok and that marriage is should not be "between one man and one woman". The ACLU cannot support both sides. That is like drinking medicine with poison in it.
They dont support "both" sides, they support the right to express religion, but stand against GOVERNMENT-sponsored religion. Why is it so hard to recognize the difference? The ACLU often stands up for whoever needs them and has done some good things, even if some of the actions I disagree with.
That is not hard to see at all. I support freedom of religion and NOT government sponsored religion. This is not what we are discussing. I understand they have done some good things, but again, its like dry cleaners that has a room in back where they molest kids in back. Yeah its great they clean your shirt, but about what else they support. When the aclu forces people to take down crosses or not allow student organize prayer in school they are attacking the right to express religion.
Also I want to make sure as often as possible the ten commandments are to be offered to be read to people coming and going out of government buildings by volunteers.I also have a question,will the aclu defend my right to call homosexuality a gross abomination,and would not be viewed as a marriage in God's eyes,if allowed?How about defend my right to advocate the spreading of christian material outside of abortion clinics?Is advocating the Christian bible free speach?You are atheist right LiberV?
I want to start a group that calls for those houses, within an eyeshot of public schools, to everyday post entire chapters of the bible, along with teachings of these chapters within the vision of school children. Also if things are done to remove these signs we find other ways through freedom of speach to actively make sure that the children, atheist or not, see these signs in support of Jesus Christ. I am going to need an organisation to take my case, will you support me Liberalviewer.
You didn't answer my question. And, pointing to the "differance between free speech and inciting people to illegal acts" does not explain how merely advocating for a change in the law is not protected free speech.
In answer to your latest question, the ACLU's mission is protecting the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. There are no more "traditional American values" than the fundamental liberties protected by the ACLU every day.
Again, what I said I take lightly is their ability to use their free speech right to persuade people to change the law. Are u saying that if u allow them free speech they may change your mind on that?
And, even if we "agree to disagree" on opinions, that still does not mean u were right to assert false facts or baselessly smear the motives of the over half million patriotic Americans who defend the rights of all Americans by joining the ACLU
As I show with the clips in this video, pronouncing various acronyms as "NAMBLA" is a running on The Daily Show. I also refer to NAMBLA being a joke in the title b/c the point of this video is that the VIEWS advocated by NAMBLA are such a joke that they aren't going to convince anyone so we don't need to worry about their ability to advocate for changing the law. For more info, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
As I said, the facts show nothing worse than advocating for a change in the law as u can see from one of the pleadings at:
tinyurl(.)com/3asn66
remove parentheses when pasting that address n your browser
You are also wrong to claim the ACLU's goal is "'sticking it' to traditional Americans" and I notice u do not even provide evidence backing up your smear against the over half million patriotic Americans who defend the rights of all Americans by joining the ACLU
As I explained, the ACLU "made a consious [sic] decision to support" the FREE SPEECH rights of these people, not some supposed right to hurt children. For more info on why supporting unpopular speech is important, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
And, there was no evidence the people the ACLU defended hurt any children. Before people are punished for hurting children, shouldn't u have evidence they hurt children?
You want to "change the horrible laws that permit things like NAMBLA from happening" but do not explain how u would make the 1st Amendment better or why u think it's ok to punish people for doing nothing worse than expressing an opinion about changing a law. We can punish people who DO bad things, but there was no evidence the people the ACLU defended committed any bad acts. Do u really think people should be punished JUST for opinions? Isn't that dangerous?
Actually, NAMBLA is not a party in that case. Members of NAMBLA got sued b/c guys who killed a young boy visited the NAMBLA site even though none of the people sued were involved w/the murder and the website did nothing worse than advocating changing a law. The ACLU defended people sued for murder for just putting up a website that advocated for changing age of consent laws. For more info, see my video titled:
Saying "it is" is not much of an argument, and, as I pointed out, u are misguided in your general contention that supporting the free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution is akin to supporting "pedophiles."
The only thing u "proved" is that when your conclusions are based on mistakes about the facts and the law, u stick with your mistaken conclusion and ignore the facts and the law. I hope when u get past your "hate," u will eventually realize that protecting free speech includes protecting the free speech of people whose opinions you despise. For more info, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
It is obvious u have a lot of hatred, but it makes no sense to misdirect that hatred towards the ACLU merely for protecting the free speech rights of us all.
Or, can u explain how someone can be sued for advocating a change in the law without damaging the free speech protections of the First Amendment?
Your claims about "trips to Bangkok" are not relevant to the actual FACTS in the ACLU case involving members of NAMBLA. Again, if u check out that video and accompanying material you'll find there is no evidence of NAMBLA doing anything in that case worse than advocating for a change in the law.
How can someone be sued for advocating a change in the law without damaging free speech protections of the First Amendment?
I'm not sure to whom u were directly this poorly worded comment or exactly what u were trying to say, but u are misguided in your general contention that supporting the free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution is akin to supporting "pedophiles."
In the comments to my vid on the NAMBLA case, I correct your claim "Their has been no line drawn." In fact, the 1st Amend protects advocacy "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Thus, the ACLU protects the 1st Amendment. I'm glad u realize your problem isn't really w/the ACLU, but w/free speech and US Constitution. If u oppose that of course u oppose the ACLU.
You confuse defending of the right of free speech with supporting the viewpoint of the speaker. If you only defend the free speech rights of people with whom you agree, you don't really believe in free speech. For more info on the ACLU defense of free speech in that NAMBLA case, watch my YouTube video titled "The Daily Show Reminds Us that NAMBLA is a Joke"
Hey what the hell does O'Reily mean when he says "judgement based"?
Does that mean someone who faith teaches that god passes final judgement? Or does it mean a person whose judgement is affected by their faith. Or does Bill mean an atheist has no judgement?
In response to your question I think Bill O' and Fox news like trying to make the ACLU look bad no matter what the truth is.
You have to wonder how much Right wingers care about freedom when the show such contempt for the ACLU.
Defending someone's right to free speech in a public forum is not the same thing as supporting that person or that person's viewpoint. I support both your right and the right of those protesters to make your comments, even though I find the content of those comments rude. Personally, I believe people should be treated with respect and dignity, but you, obviously, do not agree. Still,
America is SOOOO much behind Western Europe! We don't talk here about being a liberal or conservative any more... we talk about real freedom, which is deffenitialy not happening in America! Obviously al lot of american media AND politics are not human and disrespect peoples rights, they are NOT independent and they create hate!
O'Reilly is advocating censoring religious expression in public when its "judgement based" content offends him. As a gay man, I'm offended by street preachers who stand outside gay establishments and shout that I'm going to hell because I'm gay. But unlike O'Reilly, I don't imagine that my offense trumps the First Amendment's right to speech and religion. I'd never call for censorship. But we liberals prefer more freedom generally.
I'm sure O'Reilly forgot what he previously said as you showed in your clip. But the ACLU was defending the Phelps group freedom of speech first correct? Rather than the religious content of the speech.
How can u be "sure O'Reilly forgot what he previously said," particularly given the many times he makes this same basic charge (i.e. that the ACLU is anti-religion and wants to remove all religion from the "public square")? And, to answer your question, I used this case as an example of the ACLU defending the right of a Christians to speak about his religious beliefs.
Since the nature of Christianity is to believe the word of God over mans word and the nature of free speech is to gravitate toward mans word over Gods word I guess O'Reilly is right and the ACLU and Christianity are really at cross purposes after all. MORE>
In the movie "The African Queen" when Bogart laments his gin poured over the side of the boat exclaims it's natural for a man to drink once in a while Katherine Hepburn exlaims "Nature,Mr Alnutt is what we were put on this earth to overcome." Not here. In Aclu land free speech is way more important.
That sounds nice but you must not be seeing what I see. The cultural dialogue seems so bad today. I remember the 50's when people seemed to weigh their words better. I think there is very little responsibility attached to alot of talk today. You and I have a very different view of human nature I think.
It IS appropriate, because, as I point out on my YT profile, I'm a stay-at-home dad. In fact, when I started making YT videos in the summer of 2006, I made a deal w/my then 5-year-old daughter that she would give me a little extra time to make videos by playing/reading quietly and, in return, I would start and end all my videos with her voice. I am happy to keep that deal even if it occasionally draws attacks from people who cannot muster any better criticisms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
IF YOU ARE A WHITE MALE AND A LIBERAL, YOU ARE THE BLINDEST PERSON IN THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. THE LIBERAL HATES THE WHITE MAN, THEY WANT TO DESTROY families AND EVENTUALLY THE "EVIL" WHITE RACE WILL BE GONE.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Liberal Viewer i suggest you read Micheal Savages "enemy within" I used to be a nut just like you,untill i read a few books. I even read an al franken book and i was just in awe of the stupidity of a liberal.
If u have a factually based argument that refutes what I said in my video or posted in my comments, then make your argument. Calling me names and referring me to unspecified arguments in a Michael Savage book, however, is not really persuasive. Still,
that is exactly your ropblem your like an empty head no morals no ethics, protect the minorities at all costs. And hillary clinton is pushing towards globalism and socialism she wants to control everything, healthcare, education and economy now tell me thats not communism, is this what you want?
I can tell you one thing, if one of my loved ones where being buried and these morons where protesting and disrupted the funeral then some body WOULD go to the hospital.....
Your criticisms of the ACLU are not really accurate. Regarding the use of RICO against abortion protesters, the ACLU advocates to protect BOTH the free speech rights of protesters AND the privacy rights of women. See, e.g., the ACLU brief at:
tinyurl(.)com/32h4rk
remove parentheses when pasting that web address in your browser
And, your claim the ACLU "would never have been here if this was a protest against gay" is contradicted by the case in this video in which the ACLU was defending anti-gay speech. You can also google "ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays," one of DOZENS of cases of the ACLU defending Christians on the website at:
what happened to your aclu lawyer and liberal talk show? kiddie porn unbelievable i guess thats why you people defended NAMBLA!!!! disgusting i cant believe your so blind!
"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world..."
Some people who helped found the ACLU were communists (some were also Protestant ministers). Roger Baldwin who helped found the ACLU in 1920 was not a communist (he was a socialist). But Baldwin famously purged communists from the ACLU in 1939. He also wrote a book called "A new slavery; forced labor: the communist betrayal of human rights." After WW II, no less an anti-communist than MacArthur asked Roger Baldwin to help with civil liberties in Japan.
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class... Communism is the goal."-Roger Baldwin, founder of ACLU.
Geez, Libview, that doesn't sound like he wants to protect my American liberties!
13ev124- BTW, one of the only ACLU members that has been on FOX said he was given a memo not to put ACLU under his title, because FOX 'won't say anything good about us'. They also said he wasn't to report on their internal meetings.
Does anyone here know the ACLU was founded as a Communist org.? Look at the history in the timeline from their site- they were 90% in Communist supporting lawsuits until the late 1940's!
Communism's stated goal is to destroy Capitalism, and Russian Comm. aim was to destroy the American system.
The ACLU was founded as a civil liberties org not "a Communist org." And, looking at the ACLU site actually refutes your claim "they were 90% in Communist supporting lawsuits" whatever that means. And, isnt red-baiting somewhat passe at this late date? If u have some specific criticism of the actual ACLU, why not make it?
LibView- the exact quote, from 'In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker':
"[M]embers elected during the first sixty years of the organization, almost eighty percent had Communist affiliations. A full ninety percent of the cases that [the ACLU] defended involved Communists."
Spin it as you will, Comms. weren't known for defending American rights.
Quoting someone else saying what u said is not providing actual evidence, particularly when u do not say what u mean by "Communist affiliations" and "involved Communists." You originally said your claim was backed up by the ACLU website. Could u provide that link to that actual evidence rather than "Spin it as you will?"
The Westboro Baptist Church are all full of lawyers. They're the ones fighting the ruling.
Coramelimane 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
O'rly: "these crazy people... some nutty thing... God... this crazy group...."
Napolitano: "The group is absolutely crazy."
Aphrocraft 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
This has been flagged as spam show
Slowly, people ARE starting to realize what Fox and other media outlets are all about... It's time for the News to be News again. 3 part solution: 1. Every channel must provide a 1 hour News program WITHOUT COMMERCIALS. 2. News programs should not be rated by any Ratings system. 3. All News Channels live by the same rules, but are "Pay TV" for revenues as opposed to advertising.
Bawbster1 8 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
O'Reilly is a piece of shit real-life troll.
Or he is genuinely a moron.
Gunner3210 10 months ago 2
You're focusing on the wrong thing. Few Christians will call that group Christian. The problem is that he doesn't mention that he was wrong about them never championing religious speech. And while I would like Fox to have that much journalistic integrity, they prefer to see themselves as being opinion-based programs. Few people on TV apologize for their mistakes unless it will cost them something.
trlkly 11 months ago
O'Reilly don't want compared to the very same people he's referring to as 'crazy.' He has attacked the very same groups as the Phelps have and he knows this. O'Reilly is a walking contradiction.
GregoryGibbs1 1 year ago
snopes isnt reliable at all.
cobrafreak006 1 year ago
usually i agree with you but the fact is that they may call them selves a "christan group" Or a"church" but they are not. In fact their prevledge to be called such for tax deductions was revoked. they hide behind the title christan and use it as a get out of jail free card
leesucks5 1 year ago
This group is evil. I am not supporter of bullshit wars but those are OUR Millitary people, freinds, family, real heroes. Those protestors actually have the right to do that but if I were one of those familes being protested, they would not be there for very long. see, we're Americans & we dont need the governments approval for everything we do. because our Constitution says we dont. So, those assholes who make sad ppl exponetially more sad are allowed but there are those who are 'Just'.
eyesoverskies 1 year ago
although I cant stand FOX and have the HIGHEST disliketatude (my word, dont use) towards orielly, (because they are liars and spin more lies than any other media as well as keep out important information by feeding ppl red herrings - like all other network news orgs do)
your audio REALLY sux and its very simple to keep it level.
eyesoverskies 1 year ago
I think that what you said has very little backing. All you did was say that it contradicts and mentioned that if you google that, you get links. If i Google hitler loved jews, I bet I get tons of links, does it mean its true? but good job at showing the video of the ACLU with signs that are anti god
BTW im an atheist so I could care less, just wanted to point out that your pointing out skills failed :D
EsotericSanity 1 year ago
@EsotericSanity I think you may have missed the point of this video.
macarion 1 year ago
@macarion
Yeah I got the point, Oreilly says the ACLU is supporting a Crazy Fanatical group and before that they said the ACLU is against religious publication.
Therein there is the problem. Why support a group that makes Christians look bad?
Its kinda like taking that ugly girl to a party so everyone can make fun of her(just woke up, only example i can think of XD)
So honestly, with what is said, their is holes in LiberalBias' whole "Point"
EsotericSanity 1 year ago
@EsotericSanity No, there aren't, as far as I can see. The point is that Fox News claims the ACLU is against religion, and doesn't support any "civil liberties" of religious people/activity, and yet this video shows that they do.
macarion 1 year ago
@macarion
and of all the people they chose to support.....
EsotericSanity 1 year ago
@EsotericSanity That isn't a sentence.
macarion 1 year ago
@macarion
sorry, thought you were smart enough to figure it out.
EsotericSanity 1 year ago
@EsotericSanity Westboro = Christian. Fox News = wrong. End of discussion.
macarion 1 year ago
@macarion
your an idiot, they are fanatical crazy retards and supporting them is wrong.
Again I ask you, WHY OF ALL THE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT, would they chose them?
Its very similar to why the liberals are supporting Sarah Palin to run for president atm.
EsotericSanity 1 year ago
@EsotericSanity I know that supporting them is wrong. Yeah, you're just completely wrong about all of this, dude. But let's say you're not. You're still forgetting one thing. Westboro isn't the only Christian group that the ACLU has supported.
macarion 1 year ago
Get a Life. You should post what those people were saying at the funnerul, then try to defend them! Silly liberalviewer, true to name always loosing focus. Its not about O'reilly or th ACLU. Its about those FAKE religous scum and the money hungry sharks that try to protect them. Open your eyes and and look a little deeper than any liberal view can give you.... you might find the truth.
xfacemanx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vodpod.com/watch/1788640-penn-teller-bullshit-the-war-on-drugs
spread this shit
Big0lJh0nson 1 year ago
You are nuts. No one at the ACLU gives a crap about anything but adding to it list of anti-American cases. Illegal immiagration at the forfront. Hell, the ACLU defended the Nazi protesters. The ACLU, in my opinion are a bunch of liberal jerks, who, on occassion, take the right side, just ot be arbitrary.
rocklovely47 1 year ago
bill o'reilly is good entertainment
happyking9 2 years ago
The ACLU does NOT defend Christian speech on public property! FOX and Bill are absolutely CORRECT on the vile, unprinciples ACLU! Go Bill! You are WRONG. They are CORRECT on the ACLU! They ARE anti-religion! ALL THE WAY.
AmericaTops 2 years ago
in other words, did the SOTU mean anything?
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
well I do support their right to free speech, but they should not have the right to invade a funeral of a grieving family of a soldier who's died in war.
I know 1st Amendment protects hate speech not polite speech. but what the WBC does is assault. plus, free speech is protected as long as there is no "clear and present danger"
h2opolodan11 2 years ago
The WBC aren't Christians...they don't believe in "love thy enemy" or "thou shalt not murder," so they aren't Christians.
CaptainVideo890 2 years ago
Yes they are christians, just hardcore old testament ones. Go read Leviticus or Deuteronomy sometime. Noone today would follow these rules. Well not in 'western' nations.
xPHOENIX269x 2 years ago
Matthew 5:44
CaptainVideo890 2 years ago
Dt.13:6-10, 2 Cor.6:14-17, 2 John 9, 2 John 7, Exodus 21:15, 17, Genesis 22:1-2,10
xPHOENIX269x 2 years ago
There's no 2 John 9 or 7, retard.
CaptainVideo890 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What FOX News falsehood is LiberalViewer alluding to in the title?No falsehood is shown buy the video, just a contradiction.LiberalViewer, if you have evidence of a falsehood then show that instead!
TheRagingLibertarian 2 years ago
TheRagingLibertarian: "No falsehood is shown buy the video"
No, O'Reilly said the ACLU "opposes all displays of religion on public property" and "attacks judgment based faith." I prove that claim FALSE by showing protesters defended by the ACLU holding signs saying "God Is Your Enemy" which are "displays of religion on public property" and Westboro Baptist is definitely a "judgment based faith." I include O'Reilly on my bias list b/c his show claims to be a "No Spin Zone"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago 15
LiberalViewer does show a contradiction in Bill O'Rielly's statements.The Factor is not news, it is news editorial.Bill's fractured opinion on the subject of the ACLU does not prove that FOX News repeatedly spreads misinformation.Inconsistancies in thought do not prove anything other than Bill speaks without thinking sometimes.LiberalViewer's own affiliation to the ALCU shows his where his bias is!If FOX News shows extreme bias, LiberalViewer is not proving it.
TheRagingLibertarian 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rock and Roll the meaning:
1) REACT
2) MARRIAGE then COMFORT RANK
(instant money printing, laugh prints instant, prof kid, bit0h, 3000 days celibate, no guilt by association. cherry)
ans:safe engineering (maple graphing) use functions for distribution.
KristinaBrooker 2 years ago
I hate the Westboro Baptist Church. I can't deny that. But I also can't deny that they have a constitutional right to spout their shit. You can use your constitutional rights to fight right back against them. I understand the ACLU's stance.
magicalshrimp23 2 years ago 3
Dick Morris, the "poiltical" analyst?! YouTube goldmine from the start indeed... :-)
CaptainChaos 2 years ago
Im not one bit suprised, good work!
aos39 2 years ago
Yea, I'm all for the ACLU, but defending the Westboro Baptist Church is a completely different thing....I know it's freedom of speech, but the WBC is one of the most despicable groups of people...as much as I hate to say this, I think I might have to side with Bill on this one, even if it is a violation of free speech
WavesAndRocks 2 years ago
what's the point of free speech if u can't say what u want.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago 3
doing whats "RIGHT" doesn't appeal to most americans.
akvalues 2 years ago 15
amen.
akvalues 2 years ago
could you please wisper a little bit louder?? i can barely hear you then when the news reporter come on he is YELLING.
peace
IGutYa 2 years ago 3
another 'great O'Reilly video' I personally hate his show, along with Fox News. the best one i've seen is "Bill O'Reilly Gets Owned By Kid" where's a teenager, uses Bill's own book to turn his words again him. Of course, Bill tells him it's out context and all but tells the boy to shut up
charmedbythedarkarts 3 years ago 3
Yes I read that. Also a side note, the one person who disagreed wit O'R and used his own book against him was actually well dressed (aka wearing a suit and tie) while the other that O'R supported was just wearing a T-Shirt.
IamCanadian3333 2 years ago
LV- come on, Billo doesn't care about the details, this is a chance to smear the ACLU. So what if it contradicts most things he has been saying about them. Sad to say but you just expect this crap.
HugeJohn51 3 years ago 5
moron Bill'o the clown doesn't say anything about Phelps's nutty church picketing the funerals of AIDS victims.
victor2cutube 3 years ago 2
This case doesn't help christians it simply hurts people trying to mourn the loss of their loved ones. I am sure the ACLU is not anti religion but defending these crazy's is beyond dumb
toyt100ota 3 years ago
So then, let me get this straight. You're saying that it's ok to defend someone's freedoms as long as you agree with the group who is being defended, but if the public doesn't agree with someone's opinion, it shouldn't be defended under the freedoms granted in the constitution? This very sort of thing is the reason the founding fathers wrote those freedoms into the constitution, not to defend popular opinion, but the minority of unpopular ones. If you don't defend all, is it truly freedom?
patton4418 3 years ago
The ACLU can defend whom ever they want and do. My arguement was never that they shouldn't be defended. However I feel theses crazies should pay for their own lawyers and the ACLU shouldn't waist their resources on them. If they think they are defending christians they are WRONG they are just defending lunatics that pretend to be christian.
toyt100ota 3 years ago
Whether you agree with what the WBC says or not is not related to whether or not they have the right to say it. I hate these people with every fiber of my being, but the state of Missouri does not have the right to deny them their right to free speech or assembly. the best thing to do is join one of the many counter-protest groups that follow them and surround them in a circle so the grieving families do not have to be subjected to their hateful displays. That's what I do anyway.
WorldBFree2006 3 years ago 4
I do almost agree with O'Reilly for this (I can't believe it) but I thought this was poor reporting, A lot of his viewers would understand more if he gave the people protesting more air time because a few seconds seeing any of them and most could have come up with the insane idea themselves. I also don't understand why he wouldn't bring up that they where expressing there opinions on public property and ask his viewers what haveing free speech actually means as he fights so hard against it.
eralakiy 3 years ago
I agree about Billo being a hypocrite asshat.
However this is a rare time when I disagree with the ACLU on their position. While I think the Phelps clan has a right to do this on the streets and all that. However, I believe that the right of people to mourn the dead trumps the right of free speech at a funeral. I think its a clear case of free speech clearly being allowed to bring emotional harm to others.
buff114 3 years ago
Unfortuneatley, nothing in the constitution prohibits them from doing what they do. Therefore, passing a law banning them from picketing soldiers' funerals strikes a blow to the first ammendment. I would suggest (as I have to others) that you join a counter-protest group.
WorldBFree2006 3 years ago
Man, i have many, many, many, many, many, many, many(ok i think you get the point) RESPECT for you.
You are doing a great job!!!!!
Please, please keep it up
placidwaves 3 years ago
Good job LiberalViewer.
johnr316 3 years ago
No, I think "crazy group" is pretty dead on.
conace21 3 years ago
actually this is the no true scottsman fallacy. we define someone as a doctor when they finish university schooling and obtain a doctorate. we define a christian as someone who follows jesus christ. so any religious nutjob who thinks that his dog is the reincarnated form of jesus and that his dog jesus wants him to kill people is still a christian.
greycloud24 3 years ago
YummyDrfood,
Pharisees didn't claim to be Christian and saying "hateful actions are a sign that they don't truly follow Christ" fails to explain how you can tell who Jesus has forgiven since, as I explained, avoiding all sin (even hate) isn't required to be a Christian. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
While I think that you are dead on about the ACLU not being an anti-ANY RELGION organization, I do think you are using a very broad brush to paint the Westboro Baptists as a Christian group. I think you stand on firmer ground and less confrontational ground if you call them a religious group. An extreme religious group? Yep.
All religions have their extremist arms. We hear about Muslim ones all the time nowadays, but I wouldn't label them as Muslims personally.
balanceseeker 3 years ago
balanceseeker,
As I told YummyDrfood, I notice many people claiming to be Christian don't really follow the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, but perfect obedience isn't required to be a Christian. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use for purposes of this video (and my ACLUFightsForChristians webpage) is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
YummyDrfood,
You did not address my point that "perfect obedience isn't required of Christians" nor have you explained which "deeds" allow you to conclude someone claiming to be Christian isn't really a Christian (which sins wont Jesus forgive?). Again, the definition of "Christian" I used is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Again, can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
YummyDrfood wrote: "To even suggest that the ACLU is defending a Christian organization when they defend WBC is ludicrous"
I notice many claiming to be Christian don't seem to follow Jesus' teachings as I understand them, but perfect obedience isn't required of Christians. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition that excludes the Westboro Baptists?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
yeah I don't really consider a group Christian based if they walk around holding signs saying "God is your enemy!" and crazy stuff like that.
so I don't think the fact that the ACLU supporting them counts as supporting a christian or religious group. Maybe "crazy people was a little harsh. but they're not far from it.
kruegda 3 years ago
kruegda,
See my response to YummyDrfood regarding the definition of "Christian" I use for purposes of this video. Also, for DOZENS more examples of the ACLU defending many different kinds of Christians, see the list of links at:
ACLUFightsForChristians(.)com
Don't forget to take the parentheses out of that web address when pasting it into your browser...
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
LiberalViewer,Would you condemn O'Reilly if he condemned the ACLU for defending the KKK? Extremism has no borders,particular cause or beliefs. That is why we call it extremism, and call it CRAZY.
didyoulisiten 3 years ago
thanks for the link.
lol my 9th grade Eng. teach gave someone ISS for mentioning Harry Potter. Crazy lady. If Harry Potter promots witch craft, then LOTR, and Star Wars is no good. Not to mention 95% of Disney's IP.
the "discipline" was uncalled for, whether it was because of her christian values or not. After hours functions aren't mandatory. So that case is a pathetic attempt to make it look like they are defending christian rights.
She's southern and she's a baptist...lucky break.
kruegda 3 years ago
Quakers discriminated:
Not much info on this
I don't understand why Quakers wont even indirectly support the defense of our Nation. I think they take the safety our Nation provides for granted...but that's their choice and that's why this is America.
ACLU site didn't mention what kind of job it was in the article. Sloppy. The law might be a little silly, but it's also very general. I could agree to defend my country by working in a hospital healing wounded casualties as just one of many options
kruegda 3 years ago
I'm gonna appologize now for the bombardment of responses and comments.
"ACLU Defends Christian Worker Required to Remove Bible from Desk at Government Job"
bad link. I wont speculate too much on that one. Sounds like someone was being dumb.
-----
alright i'm running out of juice. It's getting late.
ppl make mistakes by trying too hard to make the other religions feel comfy here that they try to hide the fact that christians exist too.
"build 1000 bridges" is all I'm gonna say about the ACLU.
kruegda 3 years ago
i have no idea what I just said at the end there.
i'm tired as hell.
kruegda 3 years ago
Don't you think John Stewart and Bill O'Reilly would make a great comedy duo like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis?
961270011 3 years ago
The Westboro Baptist idiots are Democrats. Fred Phelps is a disbarred lawyer (Liberals have been known to love disbarred lawyers like Bill CLinton, Mike Nifong, and Alton Maddox) who ran for Governor as a Democrat. They also hate the military. That's why the ACLU is supporting them.
StoogeWatcher 3 years ago
O'Riley had one of those ACLU assholes on his program to tell him about how they're defending free speech which I believe in also. But if someone I loved died in Iraq and someone held up a sign that said "Thank god" they died, I'd freaking kick their ass, and O'Riley's right. It does call for disturbing the peace. No doubt about it.
Knoxvicious 3 years ago
Freedom of Speech is more important than your petty emotions get over yourself. I don't support them either but I stand behind freedom of speech! The ACLU is one of the last organizations that will keep this country from turning into a theocracy and state of surveillance.
NeoDeterminist 3 years ago
Petty emotions? WTF??? I heard people on here saying if they ever saw those people, they'd freaking take a gun and SHOOT THEM.
I'm also for Freedom of Speech, but you'd have to be freaking stupid ass to think that protesting dumbass signs like that wouldn't put their lives in danger! Disturbance of pease, asshole! What the HELL about that???
Knoxvicious 3 years ago
I dont think they even said Westboro BAPTIST Church...
Twitcherly 3 years ago
ACLU protects their rights not their idea's. I feel the same way. I think that anyone should be able to say anything they want, even though I might not share their views or even oppose it. But I would support their right to say it! Another classic case of "you support their rights so you support their views" conclusion -_-
Evulmeh 3 years ago
Poiltical Analyst
clt1113 3 years ago
Any 1 who is a part of the aclu or supports the aclu deserves to be shot.
armypike1 3 years ago
Oh joy. You're pretty much as un-Amerixan as you can get buddy.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
Oh really well unlike you i decided to serve in the armed forces and im typen this from Afganastan right now. So im un-AMERICAN? Go drink your star bucks and bitch about how horrible our country is while i go back to fighting to defend it.
armypike1 3 years ago
The thing is that like you (or so the gov. says), the ACLU is also fights for every American rights and freedoms. And if you feel that protectors of your freedom of speech, and the rights that you also are fighting for; deserves to be shot, then you would be working against your constitution, and hence, be un-American.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
Ironic that the "thank god for 9/11" people actively are pretty much people speaking 'judgement based faith'. Matter of fact, that 'judgement' fits in perfectly with the Bible's 'interpretations' of his mercy.
sonic8005 3 years ago
Well, I dislike people spieling against gay rights... but, I gotta say, he just completely contradicted himself. Fool.
GoNaruto1 3 years ago
detroittigsbaby,
There are problems with your quote, see:
tinyurl(.)com/5ptuxf
And, ACLU founder Roger Baldwin was not a communist (he was a socialist). Baldwin also famously purged communists from the ACLU in 1939. He also wrote a book called "A new slavery; forced labor: the communist betrayal of human rights." After WW II, no less an anti-communist than MacArthur asked Baldwin to help with civil liberties in Japan.
And, that was all like 60 years ago at least
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
For conveying thoughtful ideas, I despise Bill O'Reilly's loudmouth style, and I find Bill's logic to be faulty much of the time. (However, like the slapstick shows of the past, it's often fun to watch buffoons.)
To report that this Westboro Baptist Church is Christian is a stretch. It's made up mostly of members of a single family. They exhibit signs of all sorts of neuroses, and they have made certain cherry-picked scriptural verses their "golden calf."
EarthboundSpiral 3 years ago
EarthboundSpiral,
I notice many people who claim to be Christian do not seem to follow the teachings of Jesus as I understand them, but perfect obedience is not a requirement of the religion. That's why the definition of "Christian" I use here is:
1) Call themselves Christian and
2) Profess a belief in the divinity of Jesus
Can u provide a better definition of Christian that would exclude the Westboro Baptists?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
Maybe--IF I put some more time into it.
As a gay man, I've been wronged by minions of misguided Christians (within whatever "my definition" is), but, as unfortunate as all that is, I thought you should know that these Westboro Baptist people really are COMPLETE NUTCASES. Seriously, if we were in pre-Reagan times, they'd probably be involuntarily committed to an asylum.
These people calling themselves Christian is like Gene Hackman calling himself gay. Their saying it doesn't make it credible.
EarthboundSpiral 3 years ago
Mormons and Jehovah witnesses' are both legally of the Christian faith belonging to the LDS/ JW denomination. It's impossible to separate true believers from social Christians and fringe groups.
andocrates 3 years ago
Whether you like Bill O'Reilly or not, he is absolutely correct on this one. Whoever made this video does not understand the establishment clause at all. Also, you cannot say that the aclu defends someones rigth to freedom of religion if they are are trying to remove crosses and such from public places like government buildings schools and cemetaries. The 1st ammendment was put in place to keep the govenment from interfering with religion and to keep it from establising a official state religion
bucshockey04 3 years ago
bucshockey04,
Youre wrong to claim O'Reilly "is absolutely correct" b/c, as I show in my video, O'Reilly falsely claimed the ACLU "opposes all displays of religion on public property" and that the ACLU "attacks judgment based faith." Just looking at the protesters in the video, u can see "displays of religion on public property." And, you'd be hard pressed to find a more "judgment based faith" than Westboro Baptist
I hope that clears up your misunderstanding and
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
"Also, you cannot say that the aclu defends someones rigth to freedom of religion if they are are trying to remove crosses and such from public places like government buildings schools and cemetaries. The 1st ammendment was put in place to keep the govenment from interfering with religion and to keep it from establising a official state religion."
You don't see the contradiction in what you just said?
Promoting religion: Civilians = Fine, the State = Wrong.
ACLU defends this.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
It's been I while since I posted so I am not 100% sure, but I believe those sentences were responses and addressing different issues.
What the constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".
No where in that statement does in say that the government cannot display religious symbols, only that the State cannot declare a State sponsored religion.
bucshockey04 3 years ago
What other religion have you ever seen displayed in the US besides that of Christianity, in public buildings and areas?
It hasn't officially made Christianity the state religion, but give me a call when you see the Muslim half-moon in your local town hall.
Untill then, Christianity will be the only state sponsered religion.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
Look, I cannot help it that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. And IT WAS. Even Thomas Jefferson(the allegedly non-religious deist), wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
Christianity is NOT a state "sponsored" religion. We simply are recognizing our roots.
bucshockey04 3 years ago
If Christianity is a state sponsored religion, then why has prayer consistently been disallowed in public schools?? Yet that school district in California said that schools had to provide muslim students a place to pray, and even lets them out of class to do so. Why is it ok for muslims to pray, but not for Christians??
Its because the has an anti-christian agenda. Why would they represent the muslim students in california and fight against prayer in schools??
bucshockey04 3 years ago
aclu also supports the protest at funerals of dead soldiers i can not thank of anything worse than that.
armypike1 3 years ago
They aren't supporting protests at soldier funerals. They are however supporting the protesters right to do so. There's a big difference.
If you were to protest against the protesters, the ACLU would probably help you too, should you need it.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
Your country is rotten to the core. But Org.'s like the ACLU do leave some room for hope.
Land of the free? Freedom loving americans? Hah
Fallout11 3 years ago
the aclu is the devil
latinprincews6 3 years ago
Maybe he should not have said "all". But the ACLUE cannot not pick up a few cases and make themselves a christian friendly group. That will never happen. What Bill was saying was right, accurate and relevent to the the news story. The ACLU is ok will religion as long as it is liberal enough to teach that killing innocent human life is ok and that marriage is should not be "between one man and one woman". The ACLU cannot support both sides. That is like drinking medicine with poison in it.
bucshockey04 3 years ago
They dont support "both" sides, they support the right to express religion, but stand against GOVERNMENT-sponsored religion. Why is it so hard to recognize the difference? The ACLU often stands up for whoever needs them and has done some good things, even if some of the actions I disagree with.
clemsonfight 3 years ago
That is not hard to see at all. I support freedom of religion and NOT government sponsored religion. This is not what we are discussing. I understand they have done some good things, but again, its like dry cleaners that has a room in back where they molest kids in back. Yeah its great they clean your shirt, but about what else they support. When the aclu forces people to take down crosses or not allow student organize prayer in school they are attacking the right to express religion.
bucshockey04 3 years ago
u r the definintion of the blind leading the blind. No objectve view, only a sepratist view can occupy these ignorant repeating unintelligible ideas.
yuothineyesasian 3 years ago
i hate fox! wooooo
nikkyraney 4 years ago
"Judgement-based faith"?
What the fuck was O'reilly talking about when he said that anyway?
Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?
:/
Urza216 4 years ago
Bill O lied to me.......NO WAY!!!!!!!! I dont believe it, "this is pure left wing high and mighty, liberal PROPAGANDA"
-my GOD I feel for any soory sap who trusts FAUX new without checking their history
griff297 4 years ago
I wrote a retraction to this statement on your video,"What War On Christmas" Also I left a reason why I still deem the ACLU to be antichristian.
lutheratx 4 years ago
Also I want to make sure as often as possible the ten commandments are to be offered to be read to people coming and going out of government buildings by volunteers.I also have a question,will the aclu defend my right to call homosexuality a gross abomination,and would not be viewed as a marriage in God's eyes,if allowed?How about defend my right to advocate the spreading of christian material outside of abortion clinics?Is advocating the Christian bible free speach?You are atheist right LiberV?
lutheratx 4 years ago
I want to start a group that calls for those houses, within an eyeshot of public schools, to everyday post entire chapters of the bible, along with teachings of these chapters within the vision of school children. Also if things are done to remove these signs we find other ways through freedom of speach to actively make sure that the children, atheist or not, see these signs in support of Jesus Christ. I am going to need an organisation to take my case, will you support me Liberalviewer.
lutheratx 4 years ago
QQMarkPS2,
Do you have any specific, credible criticisms of the American Civil Liberties Union?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
there is nothing wrong with the aclu....or islam(as religions go)
louisvillian502 4 years ago
dummyfun1,
You didn't answer my question. And, pointing to the "differance between free speech and inciting people to illegal acts" does not explain how merely advocating for a change in the law is not protected free speech.
In answer to your latest question, the ACLU's mission is protecting the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. There are no more "traditional American values" than the fundamental liberties protected by the ACLU every day.
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
dummyfun1,
Again, what I said I take lightly is their ability to use their free speech right to persuade people to change the law. Are u saying that if u allow them free speech they may change your mind on that?
And, even if we "agree to disagree" on opinions, that still does not mean u were right to assert false facts or baselessly smear the motives of the over half million patriotic Americans who defend the rights of all Americans by joining the ACLU
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
dummyfun1,
As I show with the clips in this video, pronouncing various acronyms as "NAMBLA" is a running on The Daily Show. I also refer to NAMBLA being a joke in the title b/c the point of this video is that the VIEWS advocated by NAMBLA are such a joke that they aren't going to convince anyone so we don't need to worry about their ability to advocate for changing the law. For more info, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
dummyfun1,
As I said, the facts show nothing worse than advocating for a change in the law as u can see from one of the pleadings at:
tinyurl(.)com/3asn66
remove parentheses when pasting that address n your browser
You are also wrong to claim the ACLU's goal is "'sticking it' to traditional Americans" and I notice u do not even provide evidence backing up your smear against the over half million patriotic Americans who defend the rights of all Americans by joining the ACLU
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
bucs57m,
For the constitutional problems with trying some kind of privacy invasion claim here, see
tinyurl(.)com/35wpus
Take the parentheses out that address when pasting it into your browser
And, the "religious affiliation" DOES matter in that it contradicts Bill O'Reilly's previous claim about the ACLU as I showed in the video
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
As I explained, the ACLU "made a consious [sic] decision to support" the FREE SPEECH rights of these people, not some supposed right to hurt children. For more info on why supporting unpopular speech is important, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
And, there was no evidence the people the ACLU defended hurt any children. Before people are punished for hurting children, shouldn't u have evidence they hurt children?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
You want to "change the horrible laws that permit things like NAMBLA from happening" but do not explain how u would make the 1st Amendment better or why u think it's ok to punish people for doing nothing worse than expressing an opinion about changing a law. We can punish people who DO bad things, but there was no evidence the people the ACLU defended committed any bad acts. Do u really think people should be punished JUST for opinions? Isn't that dangerous?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
dummyfun1,
Actually, NAMBLA is not a party in that case. Members of NAMBLA got sued b/c guys who killed a young boy visited the NAMBLA site even though none of the people sued were involved w/the murder and the website did nothing worse than advocating changing a law. The ACLU defended people sued for murder for just putting up a website that advocated for changing age of consent laws. For more info, see my video titled:
"The Daily Show Reminds Us that NAMBLA is a Joke"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
Saying "it is" is not much of an argument, and, as I pointed out, u are misguided in your general contention that supporting the free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution is akin to supporting "pedophiles."
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
The only thing u "proved" is that when your conclusions are based on mistakes about the facts and the law, u stick with your mistaken conclusion and ignore the facts and the law. I hope when u get past your "hate," u will eventually realize that protecting free speech includes protecting the free speech of people whose opinions you despise. For more info, google the phrase in quotes:
"Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations"
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
It is obvious u have a lot of hatred, but it makes no sense to misdirect that hatred towards the ACLU merely for protecting the free speech rights of us all.
Or, can u explain how someone can be sued for advocating a change in the law without damaging the free speech protections of the First Amendment?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
Your claims about "trips to Bangkok" are not relevant to the actual FACTS in the ACLU case involving members of NAMBLA. Again, if u check out that video and accompanying material you'll find there is no evidence of NAMBLA doing anything in that case worse than advocating for a change in the law.
How can someone be sued for advocating a change in the law without damaging free speech protections of the First Amendment?
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
I'm not sure to whom u were directly this poorly worded comment or exactly what u were trying to say, but u are misguided in your general contention that supporting the free speech guaranteed by the US Constitution is akin to supporting "pedophiles."
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
In the comments to my vid on the NAMBLA case, I correct your claim "Their has been no line drawn." In fact, the 1st Amend protects advocacy "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Thus, the ACLU protects the 1st Amendment. I'm glad u realize your problem isn't really w/the ACLU, but w/free speech and US Constitution. If u oppose that of course u oppose the ACLU.
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
marcosis1,
You confuse defending of the right of free speech with supporting the viewpoint of the speaker. If you only defend the free speech rights of people with whom you agree, you don't really believe in free speech. For more info on the ACLU defense of free speech in that NAMBLA case, watch my YouTube video titled "The Daily Show Reminds Us that NAMBLA is a Joke"
I hope that helps and
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Hey what the hell does O'Reily mean when he says "judgement based"?
Does that mean someone who faith teaches that god passes final judgement? Or does it mean a person whose judgement is affected by their faith. Or does Bill mean an atheist has no judgement?
In response to your question I think Bill O' and Fox news like trying to make the ACLU look bad no matter what the truth is.
You have to wonder how much Right wingers care about freedom when the show such contempt for the ACLU.
abassler 4 years ago
Liberal viewer, go screw yourself. You support those scum-bags protesting at soldiers funerals?
I hope you die in a car wreck.
thumpernovember 4 years ago
thumpernovember,
Defending someone's right to free speech in a public forum is not the same thing as supporting that person or that person's viewpoint. I support both your right and the right of those protesters to make your comments, even though I find the content of those comments rude. Personally, I believe people should be treated with respect and dignity, but you, obviously, do not agree. Still,
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
America is SOOOO much behind Western Europe! We don't talk here about being a liberal or conservative any more... we talk about real freedom, which is deffenitialy not happening in America! Obviously al lot of american media AND politics are not human and disrespect peoples rights, they are NOT independent and they create hate!
miesos89 4 years ago
OWNED....damn good job brother...keep up the good work.
theastrusmega 4 years ago
O'Reilly is advocating censoring religious expression in public when its "judgement based" content offends him. As a gay man, I'm offended by street preachers who stand outside gay establishments and shout that I'm going to hell because I'm gay. But unlike O'Reilly, I don't imagine that my offense trumps the First Amendment's right to speech and religion. I'd never call for censorship. But we liberals prefer more freedom generally.
ideaphoria 4 years ago
How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?
Because God says so.
How do I know God says so?
Because it's in the Bible.
How do I know that the Bible is correct?
Because it's the word of God.
How do I know the Bible is the world of God?
elperropatron 4 years ago
I'm sure O'Reilly forgot what he previously said as you showed in your clip. But the ACLU was defending the Phelps group freedom of speech first correct? Rather than the religious content of the speech.
prrolg 4 years ago
prrolg,
How can u be "sure O'Reilly forgot what he previously said," particularly given the many times he makes this same basic charge (i.e. that the ACLU is anti-religion and wants to remove all religion from the "public square")? And, to answer your question, I used this case as an example of the ACLU defending the right of a Christians to speak about his religious beliefs.
Thx 4 comments
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
Since the nature of Christianity is to believe the word of God over mans word and the nature of free speech is to gravitate toward mans word over Gods word I guess O'Reilly is right and the ACLU and Christianity are really at cross purposes after all. MORE>
prrolg 4 years ago
In the movie "The African Queen" when Bogart laments his gin poured over the side of the boat exclaims it's natural for a man to drink once in a while Katherine Hepburn exlaims "Nature,Mr Alnutt is what we were put on this earth to overcome." Not here. In Aclu land free speech is way more important.
prrolg 4 years ago
prrolg wrote: "the nature of free speech is to gravitate toward mans word over Gods word"
On what basis do you make this claim? In fact, I believe that a free marketplace of ideas leads to greater availability and integrity of truth. See
tinyurl(.)com/yafo6s
remove parentheses when pasting in your browser
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
That sounds nice but you must not be seeing what I see. The cultural dialogue seems so bad today. I remember the 50's when people seemed to weigh their words better. I think there is very little responsibility attached to alot of talk today. You and I have a very different view of human nature I think.
prrolg 4 years ago
"Liberal Viewer presents" is appropriately said by a child. LOL.
ojosazules68 4 years ago
ojosazules68,
It IS appropriate, because, as I point out on my YT profile, I'm a stay-at-home dad. In fact, when I started making YT videos in the summer of 2006, I made a deal w/my then 5-year-old daughter that she would give me a little extra time to make videos by playing/reading quietly and, in return, I would start and end all my videos with her voice. I am happy to keep that deal even if it occasionally draws attacks from people who cannot muster any better criticisms.
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
IF YOU ARE A WHITE MALE AND A LIBERAL, YOU ARE THE BLINDEST PERSON IN THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. THE LIBERAL HATES THE WHITE MAN, THEY WANT TO DESTROY families AND EVENTUALLY THE "EVIL" WHITE RACE WILL BE GONE.
maranello16 4 years ago
Haha! Direct contradiction, just like the Bible.
localhost008 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberal Viewer i suggest you read Micheal Savages "enemy within" I used to be a nut just like you,untill i read a few books. I even read an al franken book and i was just in awe of the stupidity of a liberal.
maranello16 4 years ago
maranello16,
If u have a factually based argument that refutes what I said in my video or posted in my comments, then make your argument. Calling me names and referring me to unspecified arguments in a Michael Savage book, however, is not really persuasive. Still,
thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
P.S. I'm not sure u are using the word "LIBERAL" correctly. As u can see at a link on my YT profile, a "LIBERAL" is:
a person who favors progress, reform, protection of civil liberties, and a more laissez-faire economic theory tending toward self-regulating markets
someone who is broadminded, tolerant of change, and not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
that is exactly your ropblem your like an empty head no morals no ethics, protect the minorities at all costs. And hillary clinton is pushing towards globalism and socialism she wants to control everything, healthcare, education and economy now tell me thats not communism, is this what you want?
maranello16 4 years ago
micheal savage makes me cry at night
checked08 4 years ago
yes the truth is hard to digest.
maranello16 4 years ago
I can tell you one thing, if one of my loved ones where being buried and these morons where protesting and disrupted the funeral then some body WOULD go to the hospital.....
savagenomore 4 years ago
Immortalwatcher,
Your criticisms of the ACLU are not really accurate. Regarding the use of RICO against abortion protesters, the ACLU advocates to protect BOTH the free speech rights of protesters AND the privacy rights of women. See, e.g., the ACLU brief at:
tinyurl(.)com/32h4rk
remove parentheses when pasting that web address in your browser
MORE:
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
MORE:
And, your claim the ACLU "would never have been here if this was a protest against gay" is contradicted by the case in this video in which the ACLU was defending anti-gay speech. You can also google "ACLU Files Suit to Protect Free Speech Rights of Christian Protesting Wal-Mart's Policy on Gays," one of DOZENS of cases of the ACLU defending Christians on the website at:
ACLUFightsForChristians(.)com
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
what happened to your aclu lawyer and liberal talk show? kiddie porn unbelievable i guess thats why you people defended NAMBLA!!!! disgusting i cant believe your so blind!
maranello16 4 years ago
"When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world..."
Roger Balwin, founder ACLU
zunk11 4 years ago
zunk11,
Some people who helped found the ACLU were communists (some were also Protestant ministers). Roger Baldwin who helped found the ACLU in 1920 was not a communist (he was a socialist). But Baldwin famously purged communists from the ACLU in 1939. He also wrote a book called "A new slavery; forced labor: the communist betrayal of human rights." After WW II, no less an anti-communist than MacArthur asked Roger Baldwin to help with civil liberties in Japan.
MORE:
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
MORE:
But why attack me, my wife and the half million+ other current patriotic Americans belonging to the ACLU w/things that happened before we were born?
Does that mean u agree w/the ACLU since 1939?
Thx 4 discussing :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class... Communism is the goal."-Roger Baldwin, founder of ACLU.
Geez, Libview, that doesn't sound like he wants to protect my American liberties!
zunk11 4 years ago
13ev124- BTW, one of the only ACLU members that has been on FOX said he was given a memo not to put ACLU under his title, because FOX 'won't say anything good about us'. They also said he wasn't to report on their internal meetings.
So much for freedom of speech, eh?
zunk11 4 years ago
Does anyone here know the ACLU was founded as a Communist org.? Look at the history in the timeline from their site- they were 90% in Communist supporting lawsuits until the late 1940's!
Communism's stated goal is to destroy Capitalism, and Russian Comm. aim was to destroy the American system.
zunk11 4 years ago
zunk11,
The ACLU was founded as a civil liberties org not "a Communist org." And, looking at the ACLU site actually refutes your claim "they were 90% in Communist supporting lawsuits" whatever that means. And, isnt red-baiting somewhat passe at this late date? If u have some specific criticism of the actual ACLU, why not make it?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago
LibView- the exact quote, from 'In Defense of American Liberties - A History of the ACLU, Samuel Walker':
"[M]embers elected during the first sixty years of the organization, almost eighty percent had Communist affiliations. A full ninety percent of the cases that [the ACLU] defended involved Communists."
Spin it as you will, Comms. weren't known for defending American rights.
zunk11 4 years ago
zunk11,
Quoting someone else saying what u said is not providing actual evidence, particularly when u do not say what u mean by "Communist affiliations" and "involved Communists." You originally said your claim was backed up by the ACLU website. Could u provide that link to that actual evidence rather than "Spin it as you will?"
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 4 years ago