that was great!
wallace thought he had a skate interview with olson.
notice how he tried to ask the same question three times in different form?
and each time wallace got rejected!
i bet he cried after this interview.

that guys wife was held on 911

>> ^marinara:

that guys wife was held on 911


held?

'dismantle' is absolutely right. Sometimes a lawyer's mind is so amazingly procedural it's scary.

I'm not sure I've seen a Fox interview progressed so politely, by the way.

Crazy... even given his own words which probably with any other Faux guest would have them squirming around to try and get out of them, he just calmly takes his own and wallace's talking points apart piece by piece. I can sense an undertone of "this is stupid and a waste of time" as if he was being asked if women should be able to vote or something similar.

hahahahahaha, chris, you *fail

Adding video to channels (Fail) - requested by kulpims.

Wallace, for future reference, "I'm sorry if I interrupted you" is a polite way of saying "Shut the fuck up while I'm talking".

Well, that was unusually reasonable.

Wallace is nothing but a Fox prag. He got pwned.

His tone warbled after he heard that - I think he got the message >> ^Zyrxil:

Wallace, for future reference, "I'm sorry if I interrupted you" is a polite way of saying "Shut the fuck up while I'm talking".

Even though I'm Canadian, when you see the United States working like it's supposed to work... it's no wonder at one point the US was held up as a shining example to the rest of the world.

It's really too bad that greed and corruption get in the way and you guys end up f'ing the dog the rest of the time...

Was it just me or was the point basically made during the first question and the other 6 minutes was just Wallace being thick about it and Olson repeating himself?

With O'Reilly saying on the Tonight Show that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed immediately.... and the "reasonableness" of this interview.... I'm beginning to wonder if Fox News might not be shifting its editorial view.

Wouldn't it be luverly?

>> ^bareboards2:

With O'Reilly saying on the Tonight Show that Don't Ask Don't Tell should be repealed immediately.... and the "reasonableness" of this interview.... I'm beginning to wonder if Fox News might not be shifting its editorial view.
Wouldn't it be luverly?

Shortly afterwords I see Satan driving an ice-cream truck.

"I am sorry if I interrupted you." after being interrupted himself.

My grandfather would say the exact same thing to me after I interrupted him, so frustrating/humiliating.

Great sift

At least wallace was classy enough to say that last comment.

Equality is gay

Here's a transcript if you're in a hurry

Chris: opens interview
Olson: makes main point in response which is focussed on rights and equality under the constitution.
Chris: "but"
Olson: destroys with a continuation and restatement of the above argument
Chris: trying a tangent "but"
Olson: destroys, see above
Chris: tries to break in to disrupt the momentum
Olson: slaps him down, then proceeds to continue destroying
Chris: "so you're saying..."
Olson: destroys, see above
Chris: Tries to distract with a definition of activism
Olson: remains on point, destroys
Chris: "er..." *searches through bag of tricks and finds it empty.
Olson: concluding destroying remarks start
Chris: tries interrupting again
Olson: ignores, overrides, and finishes destroying concluding remarks
Chris: pauses
Olson: waits politely
Chris:" I got pwned, didn't I?"
Olson: smiles.

Good sift.

>> ^sme4r:
"I am sorry if I interrupted you." after being interrupted himself.
My grandfather would say the exact same thing to me after I interrupted him, so frustrating/humiliating.
Great sift


I agree. He lost, badly, and was clearly outclassed. To then turn to the guy who stomped you and essentially shake his hand and say, "That was one of the finest beatings I've ever received. Well played, sir" is more than I'd expect from anyone at Fox. Especially on an issue like this.

Kudos to Chris Wallace for at least allowing him to complete each response. If this was an O'Reilly interview among others on Fox News, he likely would never have been allowed to finish a sentence.

*gay *law

Adding video to channels (Gay, Law) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.

Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.


A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.


Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.



You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

That was FANTASTIC. What brilliant rhetoric and reasoning from a man who obviously knows what he's talking about. That was absolutely exhilarating to watch. That's right, exhilarating.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences. ...

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

FOX moron: "Yeah, well.. You're still a big stupid doodie-head!"

HAHAHA! Yea being gay is the new "hip" thing that all the young kids are doing these days. Grandpa, is that you?

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Same-sex "marriage" remains part and parcel of the "making shit up" argument. It's something that did not exist until very recently, and has never existed in any religion or society except in extremely limited instances with zero far-reaching consequences.
Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.
Olson can obfuscate however he wants, the fact is this GAY judge was acting as an activist, and had NO precedent for his decision to overturn the will of the people. Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.
Why should the rest of us be forced at gunpoint to accept gay "marriage" as equal to traditional marriage? Tyranny of the minority is just as bad as the other way.

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

>> ^packo:

>> ^marinara:
that guys wife was held on 911

held?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Olson#Death

For those of you who don't know Barbara Olson was on American Airlines Flight 77.

Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 on her way to a taping of Politically Incorrect in Los Angeles, when it was flown into the Pentagon in the September 11 attacks.

Flight 77 was hijacked at 8:54. At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Olson called her husband. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and boxcutters.[3] She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the rear of the plane.[3] About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off.[3]

Shortly after, Barbara reached her husband again. She reported that the "pilot" had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses. Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. Ted Olson informed Barbara of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic at the time. At that point, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher left a panel seat vacant for a week following her death.

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

It's a short enough article so worth a read. IMO the important points start at "Taxes", halfway down the first page.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.>> ^quantumushroom:
For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions"...

What happens when a political super power suddenly starts to become politically focussed moving toward religious extremism?

"Your rights are decided by what my god said."

oh shit, elton john said it, guess we all better fall in line!

over and over and over and over and over, like a monkey with a miniature cymbal.

Let me first make it clear that I support gay marriage, because it's about to sound like I don't.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights. These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.

This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life. What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

@quantumushroom (re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government. The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

@quantumushroom (re: Gay marriage in history)
Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

Same-sex marriage was also legal and common in parts of China during the Ming dynasty.

Presently, full marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.

Basically, the trend seems to be that when and where people are reasonably intelligent and not of an Abrahamic religion, gays are A-Ok.

A lot of things haven't existed until very recently. In this case it's called progress.

Oh is that what you call it? Progress? Well, if gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did it not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

Society has a right to define what is best. That doesn't mean polygamists, cohabitators, gay couples, etc. are left out in the cold with no rights, it means since society has deemed a marriage of one man/one woman the way that works best, then that is the relationship held in highest esteem.

Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is a straw man fallacy. Denying polygamy does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

But I'm not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, except to point out that both are less desirable to a society that plans on surviving. And if gays can argue that the State discriminates against them because of sexual orientation, then the polygamist can argue that the State discriminates on the basis of numbers.

Comparing gay equality to the Civil Rights movement is bogus...Civil Rights was about achieving the SAME rights, not special rights.

How does a gay marriage have any more rights than a straight one? They're fighting for the SAME rights that are given to straight couples. If this was 60 years ago you'd be arguing against giving black people the "special" right to use the same water fountain as you.

A "How DARE you!" would be an appropriate response for making such a blanket accusation, but I can't get the proper English accent for it. So I'll just add you're going to have to do better than crying racism or raising taxes, the only tricks lefties know if you don't count surrendering to America's enemies.

You call it tyranny if you're forced to accept that a minority has access to the same rights as you do? You playing the victim here is moronic and laughable.

Society is the victim and decadence is the poison. As the "evil" conservative I'm as valuable or more so than the "good" liberal who always demands CHANGE for the sake of change, since 99 out of 100 "new" ideas fail. Thousands of years of trial and error have brought us here and now. And none of us are smarter than those thousands of years of trial and error.

over and over and over and over and over, like a monkey with a miniature cymbal.

Like libs with their "Tax cuts for the rich", and "IT BE RACISM!!" And let's not forget "It's all Bush's fault," when the past 20-something months it's Barack Keynes' fault.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights.

If these are "new" rights, then how did an activist judge magically discover them in the old Constitution? I appreciate your forthrightness. The actual activists simply claim these rights have been hidden in there all along like the right to an abortion.

These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life.

But marriage is not about any one personal life. It's about two lives intertwining on every level, including matters of the State.

What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

A realistic one.


(re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

Glad you feel that way, but you're in a shrinking minority. Los Angeles removed a tiny cross from their city seal, and there's now a huge court batle over the Mojave Memorial Cross.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government.

You may think so, but "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis for many of our secular laws. You cannot "escape" religion, it's intertwined with everything.

The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

They cannot make you do these things on overtly religious grounds, but under certain circumstances they can make you do or not do all these things and more. How about curfews in a riot zone? Now we're back to the "Thou shalt nots" in varying forms.

Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

If gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did gay unions not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

This is a lesbian's view of the legal stuff: "The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions".

I read enough of it to get the gist: that the two are not equal because civil unions are recognized by States only. My answer to that is...it's up to the people. I wouldn't mind a national "civil union act" but 70% of Americans still do.

My own two cents: I think that in a human sense marriage is just a label for loving commitment. People can be everything a husband and wife can be without that label just as that label doesn't automatically make the couple a paradigm. In that sense I don't care who calls themselves married. In the legal sense I always thought of marriage as a declaration of two people as a single legal entity and all the entitlements that that brings are a natural progression of that. I guess that simple definition won't stand up to most people's standards but in my mind everything else is just an elaboration. I don't see why a state would interfere with that on the basis of genders. The only difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual union (excepting sterility) is the ability to produce kids. There's plenty of evidence that even the ability to raise kids is the same.

So... Gay marriage legal? It's only a label and taxes. The label doesn't matter a damn and the main argument against tax equality boils down to "we give these guys tax cuts 'cos they breed". <sarc> I say give the children of unfit breeders to fit gays and give everyone who's raising kids the extra rights. </sarc> Or not. There is that whole over-population thing.

Well said.

Some predictions: At some point within the next 20 years, on our present course, gay marriage will be legal, except in whatever cities or states have been overrun by muslims. 20 years beyond that, homosexuality will be considered a genetic defect correctable in vitro.

[redacted]