I'm from Texas. I support Abortion. No contraceptive is 100% effective, not even if you combine them. If you don't understand that, study how percentages work.

Secondly, kids are hormonally driven creatures. They are literally under the influence of natural chemicals driving them to procreate.

Not every school or parent teaches them about contraceptives. In fact, you will find most 'Christians" only support abstinence. This is the equivalent of telling a chemically dependent addict to "Just Say No!" How well did that work in the drug war back in the day? (Hint: However, despite DARE's bold claims, research has shown that the program has failed spectacularly.)

Third, the people who are most affected by this new law are the people that can least afford the better contraceptives or having a child in a non-stable family environment. This won't bother a middle class or rich family at all, they can just send the kid off to an "aunt" in another state until the issue is resolved. Those kids from poor families will just be forced to have the kid and likely it will ruin their lives. This doesn't even take into account that the new law doesn't have ANY exceptions for rape or incest.

Fourth, the USA was founded on religious freedom. In other words, you get to believe what you want and others get to do the same. This means that if a religious person tells another person that something they are doing is forbidden due to morality contained in their religion, that other person can tell you to fuck right off. Church and State are supposed to be separate, but the Christian right think they should be able to legislate their religious ideas on others. Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

I'm nominally a conservative. Sadly that means that I get lumped in with you ultra far right wackos that want to turn the USA into a religious state like Iran or Afghanistan. I'm not leaving my home state because some religious nut jobs think it is OK to kill adults by lethal injection but that it is BAD to kill some cells that are multiplying.

Btw, the cardiac activity detected on ultrasound at six weeks is not a true heartbeat. It results from electrical activity, but the valves of the heart have not yet formed. And the sound does not indicate the pregnancy is viable. Women typically don't notice they are pregnant until they miss a period. So if they are unlucky, they may already be close to four weeks pregnant. That leaves them two weeks to confirm it with a doctor, since home tests are not 100%, get together money for the abortion, find a clinic, and schedule an appointment that falls within the remaining time period. Since this law will cause even more clinics to close in Texas, you can add travel and patient backlog to the time. A teen could do everything right and still miss out on the lottery for an appointment, dramatically changing their life for years.

But at least some smug religious person can sip their coffee and be proud they enforced their morality on some evil women that dared sleep around out of wedlock.

There are a few problems with that, and they all end up at the same issue, lobbying.
Police unions are incredibly powerful lobbyists and do lobby against the public's interests, and they use the threat of striking, leaving the public with zero law enforcement, to squash any attempt to regulate them.....and when that fails, the sheriffs and chiefs often just ignore the new laws, like they did about making discipline records public in CA, they just said "nope" and refused to release them, many departments held bonfires where they burned these records to ensure they would never, under any circumstances, become public knowledge....still today, even long after the law went into effect Jan. 1st and has been upheld in courts, the A.G. just outright refused again to follow state law and release these public records. Pretty damn hard to establish an effective oversight body when police have the ability to erase all information they wish by any means with no repercussions.

Second, the prison guard union is the best funded, most powerful private/union lobbying group in America, and they do actually write laws for representatives to present. It's clearly in their best interest to force the desperate to be criminals, it's their bread and butter. They fight to expand minimum sentencing, incarcerate 14 year olds as adults for life, continue and expand the failed drug war, oppose any rescinding of criminal laws, have tried to reinstate debtor's prisons, criminalized multiple civil crimes, etc....incarceration is their business, and business is good.

So while I agree, there are numerous better systems that serve everyone much better with less money , less incarceration, and less recidivism, until we revamp our political system to make it illegal to bribe politicians (and make no mistake, it's perfectly legal to bribe them with campaign donations or promises of massive support), there is no way in hell it's going to improve and a near certainty it will continue to get worse because there's money to be made by locking people up.

Its kind of comical how terrified american police officers always appear in these videos. The contrast between the police officer and the woman's composure is too much, they may want to consider improving their selection procedure and training techniques.

the elephant in the room, and no one wants to admit it right or left, is that the history of police /judicial systems has never been good. Im not saying it to advocate for anarchy but basically everywhere, always, police abuse their power, while preventing very little crime / providing justice. I dont pretend to know all of history, but I never get much of a response when I say this and I thinks its because power corrupts no matter what, and there will always be minority others to justify abusing. The very very best you can hope for is to have enough oversight so as to make the corruption spread out, obscure, and minimal but even then...

For a long time I thought the US police was at least more effective in closing cases but between the US getting its ass kicked in the drug war despite the militarized police and a report I saw about poor coordination across state lines leading to murders and missing persons cases going unresolved for decades

Denzel says "the system is rigged..."

John Ehrlichman in 1994 stated "... the drug war was simply a way to vilify African Americans and the anti-war left."

So it is clear that the people in power directed the nations institutions and resources by the creation of laws and policies which resulted in millions of people being incarcerated. Then as Denzel clearly explains generations of young black males ended up fatherless and the cycle repeats itself.

*promote the *quality mini documentary.

The drug 'war' is so devastating to all involved. I want to say I'm at least glad that it isn't like this in Canada and America but I know that in parts of a lot of cities there are these types of things going on. Little by little we try to make a difference.

@ChaosEngine

I think we're getting a bit far off from the original topic, so I'll try to stay focused on my original point: you're still saying this guy in the video was presented with evidence and refused to change his mind.

He wasn't.

He was asked a rhetorical question to which he spontaneously replied in the way that he felt would be most in line with the thinking of his political party since he knew he was going to be on TV. His throwaway answer triggered your angry throwaway comment and here we are, with you apparently unable to grasp the irony of how your demonizing a group of "wooly thinking" bogeymen (who according to you are responsible for slavery, homophobia, and the drug war among other things) is completely mirroring the rhetoric of all the people in the video who are demonizing the BLM movement and the rhetoric of Trump in general regarding Mexicans, Muslims, etc.

You can see how well that approach is working for the Republicans, so it's baffling to me why you'd take that approach in dealing with something that is a real problem--convincing people to change their minds about beliefs that are deeply held but also based on what others would say is faulty reasoning (but seems perfectly reasonable to the person holding the belief). I think you'll find, along with the Republicans, that this approach of demonizing the "other" (who exists only in your mind--when was the last time you met someone who actually believed they were possessed by demons when they caught a cold?) does nothing to solve problems but in fact exacerbates them instead.

And that concludes all I have to say on the subject. I'll read whatever response you post but won't be replying in this thread again.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

*related http://videosift.com/video/everything-about-the-drug-war-and-addiction-is-wrong
*related http://videosift.com/video/Real-Time-with-Bill-Maher-Johann-Hari-on-The-War-on-Drugs

everything about the drug war and addiction is wrong has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Real Time with Bill Maher: Johann Hari on The War on Drugs has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Your video, everything about the drug war and addiction is wrong, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You are once again sounding insane.
First, "conservatives" barely exist, and you are not one.
Neocons, like yourself, still believe in enslavement...they claim to be the "law and order" party, which means they write ridiculous laws (drug war, debtors prison, privatize prisons and let prison guards write laws, etc.) that put people in jail/prison for money...a type of enslavement.
Regulation is not enslavement.
Yeah, I see you can't even read yourself....they "haven't changed since Lincoln", but they have changed positions 100% since Nixon....and you don't seem to have the capacity to understand the two things are mutually exclusive.
What...you don't think there are enough highways, but there are too many salamanders? That seems like a typical assessment from you.


Oh, and for your last post, you are absolutely clearly racist. No question about it for anyone who's read your posts. When you separate people by race then talk crap about the other groups, that's racist, and you do it daily. You seem to just not know what the word means, that's the only explanation for you claiming to NOT be racist. The rest of your post is just insane straw men you made up....as in "only white people can be racist"...no one said or implied any such thing...you just WISH they had so your argument would make sense.

Notice how good the cops are at roughing people up when there is no danger and no real threat. But when the time comes when you actually hope that the police will defend person and property against invasion, times of genuine upheaval and fear, suddenly the police retire back and become strangely passive. It happens in every case of "civil unrest," and it's always astonishing. It's when property owners discover that they are on their own. The persistence of this behavior should make everyone rethink their presumptions that tax-funded, government-run policing is the right approach to security.

The smart response to Baltimore is to recognize that this is the product of the pointless drug war, a racially punitive policing system, failed public services, a highly regulated labor market that cuts off economic opportunity, gun control, and permanent martial law that makes everyone feel like prisoners in their own homes and lives.

Alas, we're likely to see only the typical bourgeois response to Baltimore: lock up these "animals" and unleash the cops on the rest.

Which explanation sells better to the "public?" I think it's pretty obvious. This is why fascism always wins.

I think you know that the police have fought to keep those numbers from being kept at all. There is no national database that has numbers on innocent people shot by cops. I saw a news story about that just last week.
Cops aren't doctors. If a cop does their job properly and conscientiously, people don't often still die as a result. The same can't be said for Doctors. Also, Doctors don't break into your home and force surgery on you....EVER! ;-)
What the numbers DO clearly and definitively say is, in a meeting between a cop and a citizen, the cop is more than 10 times more likely to kill the citizen than the citizen is to kill the cop. That's outrageous under any circumstance.

Bluffing=lying. Respectfully, since you are now an admitted liar, how can you be trusted about anything?

I wish police would consider that before 'bluffing' citizens out of their rights, often by pretending they don't have any and hoping the citizen will follow what SEEMS like a 'legal command', but is really carefully worded to be a 'forceful request' that only sounds like a command.
Once you've 'bluffed' once, you are untrustworthy for life. Because so many (if not all) police 'bluff' remorselessly, shamelessly, and consistently, most people rightly don't trust ANY of them about anything.

I would prefer to buy my grass at the weed store in full daylight, legally. Sadly, right wing insanity and left wing fecklessness continues to perpetrate the disastrous 'drug war', which is really a militarization of the police and a war on Americans, not a war on drugs...no drugs have been sentenced or fined, but many people are. It's because of this situation that the black market exists, and those in it must protect themselves, because they can't call the police for help. That puts us all in danger...for less than nothing in return.

The trends in policing throughout the country are ominous, thanks to the drug war, the Dept of Homeland Security, and the spillover from America's many foreign wars. The whole world is a U.S. battlefield, and the people of the world, including Americans, are the enemy.

@Sarzy, @lucky760:

To's output can be roughly divided into three categories:
- Straight Film Noir influenced by Jean-Pierre Melville, including his early Milkyway Image productions, his The Mission / Exiled / Vengeance sort-of-trilogy, etc, with a special mention for Election 1 & 2.
- Somewhat more 'commercial' ventures: Running Out Of Time, Full Time Killer, Drug wars, and Breaking News... Less edgy, but better production value.
- And his more 'out there' attempts, that are usually crime films with some surreal aspect: Running On Karma (Shaolin-monk-turned-stripper sees people's past incarnations, tries to reverse their karma), Throwdown (everyone is a secret Judo master), Mad Detective (schizo detective can see people's inner personality and dialogue with them)...

He sometimes misses the mark, but his films are usually worth their salt (this often extends to other Milkyway films he produces).

Breaking News, it turns out, is a minor To film. It's well directed (as you can see by yourselves), and it's definitely fun to watch, but ... it's just that his other films are better! My advice : start with PTU, Exiled, or Full Time Killer. Then if you like what you see, go for the rest.

And if you like Running On Karma, check out Wai Ka Fai, To's writer / Milkyway co-founder and sometimes-director. That guy is good.