Added: May 16, 2008
From: PropagandaBuster
Duration: 4:24
Recently federal bureaucrats added polar bears to the endangered species list from the Endangered Species Act of 1973, signed President Richard Nixon. The polar are not endangered as there are more polar bears now than there were fifteen to twenty years ago. They were added because of the hoax of man make global warming where it is believe the habitat of the poplar bears may become threatened thus it may contribute to endangering the polar bears. This is just an attempt by the anti-capitalist (environmentalist and animal rights thugs) to stifle capitalism in these here United States. Which is making democracy in the United States of America a joke, nothing but a façade to fool lazy Americans. Further proof:Sixty-one percent of California voters who voted, approved a ban on gay marriage. Then one judge (the ruling was 4 to 3) ruled that the ban was unconstitutional and threw out the results of the election where 61% of the voters approved of the ban. That one judge threw out the will of the people. Okay you can now laugh about the joke of democracy in the United States.We need to vote out of office every person who currently hold elected office from dog catcher to Senator.
Channel: News
Tags: act analysis bear commentary democrat endangered environment gay grassroots ice marriage news outreach polo species
Rating: 3.12 (43 ratings) Views: 3109' favoriteCount='4 Comments: 583
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Once again you purposely miss the point of this video, it has nothing to do whether I mind about gays getting married or not. It is about the court over-stepping its judicial authority as stated in our pervious dozens of comments above. You can disagree all you want that marriage is a civil institution, it still does not change. You can disagree my van is white, but guess what? My van is still white.
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - I see. My mistake then and I apologize for misunderstanding your position. However, as I already demonstrated, the court in no way overstepped it's authority. To borrow from your white van example, you can disagree all you want about the courts jurisdiction, but guess what? It was still the courts jurisdiction.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Sorry, once again I do not agree and never will agree that the court acted properly in this situation.
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Why not? How did they act inappropriately? It can't be because they overturned an unconstitutional referendum, because that's their job. It can't be because they acted against the will of the people, because our government is not a direct democracy and never has been, so "the will of the people" is really just a nice sound bite for politicians and political pundits to use to sway the uninformed voter. We don't even elect our Presidents through a direct democracy.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - How was that referendum unconstitutional?
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Because it denies one group the freedom to do something everyone else can do, based solely on sexual preference. Read Perez v. Sharp (1948) for the precedent.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - The referendum did not deny everyone the right to marry. Gays could marry a person of the opposite sex, no problem at all.
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Nice cop out. Why would a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex? They're gay! Do you know that that was the exact same lame argument they used in 1948 when the California Supreme Court ruled that the referendum banning interracial marriages was unconstitutional? That one passed by 91%. Read Perez v. Sharp for the precedent. They ruled back then that your argument was fallacious.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - So then you are avoiding the situation today with a "cop out" to the past.
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 29, 2008 - No, I am directly addressing the situation by examining precedent. The American legal system is largely based on precedent.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 2, 2008 - Correction - we should vote on whether or not your van is white. Of course, those who cannot see will be unable to know whether or not your van is truly white. They will have to rely on the good conscience of others... for humanity has such an excellent track record in that regard. You cannot vote on facts. It is absurd. The marriage issue should not have been voted on in the first place. That is why it has caused such a furore - it does not fit with logic, reason, or even basic ethics.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 2, 2008 - You are correct, it defies logic and marriage should just be left as an institution between two adults of the opposite sex. The voters and the courts should have not been involved.
nicksum29 Says:
Jul 3, 2008 - *sigh* It just won't "click" will it? Change waits for no one- whether you agree with that change or not is irrelevant to the indisputable fact that change will occur. Adaptation or death separates the innovators from the stagnant mediocrities that litter the pages of phantom books of dull never-to-be-written histories. . The word "conservative" is similar to the word "preservative" - you know, that stuff we cram into bottles of old vegetables to prevent them from rotting away.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - You don't seem to understand how many millions of lives you are condemning because of your inability to understand the preponderance of homosexuality in humanity. Do you know any gay people at all? Have you ever met the children of gay people? Are you aware of the rights my children are denied by American law? Please think on this more clearly, and un-emotively; and try not to think only about sex... we certainly don't.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - You do not seem to understand this video has nothing to do with validating or invalidating homosexuality. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is no business of mine. You purposely miss-represented the intent of this video to bring forth your own agenda and labeling me falsely. Thus bringing discredit to your position.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - And you don't seem to understand that arguing in favor of upholding an unethical principle (i.e. voting on human rights issues) is as heinous as South Africa's 1989 referendum - when white South Africans were asked whether or not they thought black, Indian, mixed-race, and Chinese South Africans should be allowed the same rights as racially "pure" whites. Can you not see that to even use this issue as a basis for a "voice of the people" argument is heinous?
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 5, 2008 - The relevancy of a South African issue does not exist here, as I am only discussing American issues. But I am very familiar with our law of the land, and aware that judicial activism violates the separate, but equal three branches of government.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - When one posts a video on YouTube, it becomes an international issue. America is not an island, and will - given more time - begin to conform to the democratic norms of the rest of the First World. It just seems such a pity that the US no longer leads the way in regards to Human Rights, but has now left this task to the emerging European Union, and even fledgling democracies like Taiwan and South Africa. Where are the Great Humanitarians that built the principles of your nation?
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - We are still here, however your agenda is blinding you to that.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - Forgive me, but you too have an agenda. That is your right. My agenda is the spreading of the idea tolerance through education. Yours seems to oppose this idea. I accept your right to disagree with my agenda, but I cannot accept your belief that it should be opposed by ballot. I am convinced, as many others are, that your agenda will ultimately be the one that is regarded as atrocious in the eyes of collective humanity in the centuries to come. Yet I support your right to express it.
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - You are forgiven. May I ask for your forgiveness? The struggle in the USA is my agenda to see the eradication of political correctness, to get a fair and balanced news media. Which is an internal agenda for the USA. May I suggest you concern yourself with the red menace about to hit your nation from beyond the sea to your west? When that happens, then you can appeal for the "collective humanity." Once again please accept my apology if my comments seemed rude and disrespectful.
beadlegirl921 Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - You are correct. China is a terrible worry. And our new president seems unable to oppose Hu effectively. It is my sincere belief that we will unite with China very soon - and we will have even fewer rights. Already our foreign policies are being modified to appease China. The academics say that by 2012, China's economy will have overtaken the US, and by 2015 its military budget will be the largest the world has ever seen. Take a look at China's military parades on Youtube. Very scary. PAX
PropagandaBuster Says:
Jul 6, 2008 - I can understand you fear of China, however in the USA we have no fear of China. That comes from realizing that as the people of China prosper, then the influence of the communist will dwindle. When people live in prosperity, communism can not survive.
Jaric55 Says:
Jul 14, 2008 - SAME-SEX MARRIAGE NOW!! In GA! In AK! In OK! In IL! In OR! In SC! Everywhere!
h8uall66 Says:
Jun 28, 2008 - Oh, well if it is a civil institution then you shouldn't mind gays having that right too. However, I disagree that marriage is a civil institution. That would imply that it somehow benefits the public, which is simply not the case. In fact, it places undue burdens on the public in the form of increased taxes. It in no way guarantees monogamy, and thanks the no-fault divorces, ensures that women can cheat on their husbands with impunity and still take half of his wealth.