Liberals are freedom-friendly, because they want to increase the number of situations in which every citizen can expect their government to defend their freedom.

I see. So when liberals tell me I can't have salt, trans-fat, tobacco products, plastic grocery bags, develop oil, own property, use my own money on school vouchers, force me to support laws I disagree with, and force states to overturn laws they pass, et al - they are DEFENDING freedom instead of taking it away. This is a fascinating (if unsurprising) peek at the mental landscape of liberals.

This is where the intellectual and philosophical divide exists between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe that big government and central planning "defend freedom". Conservatives believe that big government and central planning is tyranny. I believe history proves that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Welles "Animal Farm" nails the pattern. People overthrow tyranny with good intentions, and then those who come to power themselves become tyrants - always with good intentions.

The only solution is to strip government of power and forbid them from exercising authority over the people. That's why the Consitution was such a brilliant document. It limited GOVERNMENT - not people. That's also why Barak Obama is such a moron, and why he should never have been let within a million miles of power. He claims to be a constitutional scholar - and yet he has ZERO understanding or respect for the core, basic REASON why it is so brilliant.


This is the little gem our Man-Child president dropped that told me instantly that he was unfit to hold any public office. Period.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."

I do not doubt that you completely agree with this sentiment Netrunner. And that agreement is why you are wrong - and at the most fundamental level why you and those like you are so stridently opposed by over 65% of the nation. People with their heads screwed on right understand perfectly that any person who believes that government should be an organization which "must bring about redistributive change" is anti-American, anti-liberty, and should NEVER be allowed to hold power or push laws their way. EVER.

Yep; it doesn't say those exact words. Let's all narrowly define every section of the constitution to the meaning it held at that specific point in history. Surely the founding fathers didn't intend for us to interpret it beyond it's immediate intention.

Treaty of Tripoli anyone ? Oh wait, sorry, not in the consitution, guess it doesn't count. Oh well !

People like Newt piss on the graves of the thousands of Americans who have died defending their Consitution. They piss on the graves of my fellow Canadians too, as our society shares most, if not all, of those beliefs. Tolerance is a goal, it can never be "achieved", because as new ideas are generated, someone, somewhere, will disagree with it. The North American way of life requires tolerance, it will die without it.

Posting Guidelines ¶

So you have a sweet video you'd like to post. That's great. We appreciate all of the additions that help keep VideoSift alive and kicking, but sometimes videos are posted that really shouldn't be on VideoSift. We don't like to delete your videos and *ban you. Honestly, it makes us sad. With that in mind, we've put together a few guidelines to which you must adhere whenever posting a video. Please read these before you make your first post!

1. Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

* The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
* You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
* You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
* You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

*discard

> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Freedom is where I plant my flag. You can know in advance very clearly where I stand on any issue based on my guiding political philosophies of limited government power, and increased human freedom.

I noticed a comment by you on another video saying "I see no reason why MJ should be illegal when used medicinally." I'd personally think that someone wanting to limit government power and increase personal freedom would oppose the prohibition of any drug on any level, even for non-medical use, but it's possible I misinterpreted your other comment.


Show me a liberal who fights for the consitution as it was written...

You have mentioned that you believe healthcare reform to be unconstitutional, though I don't think I've seen you explain why. One could argue that the "general welfare" of the nation is worth fighting for, but perhaps that is the difference between "reading" the constitution and "interpreting" it.

Do you believe your interpretation of the constitution is the only correct one?

Torturing innocent people to death is an exaggeration? As in, we didn't do it?

I can find no credible source documenting the U.S. military 'torturing people to death'. Rhetoric such as 'murdering innocent people', 'going to war over false pretenses', 'sycophantic neocon ideas', 'purposefully plunging the economy'... These are the biased terms of left wing blogs. Speaking out against the Iraq War, or Bush, or whatever doesn't make you a kook. The WAY you speak out against them is what makes a kook like Olbermann.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

A fruitless endeavor, because conservatives are by natural proclivity concerned about others. They'd 'admit' it with a smile, and prove it with actions. The liberal approach to addressing the needs of others is to hand out a stringy, stinky government fish once a month. The conservative approach to helping the needy is to encourage them to create a fishing concern so they can make millions of dollars selling fish after they feed themselves like kings.

You are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle

I am a strict fiscal conservative with strong constitutional constructionist leanings and a decidedly libertarian philosophy. Freedom is where I plant my flag. You can know in advance very clearly where I stand on any issue based on my guiding political philosophies of limited government power, and increased human freedom. I am not guided by 'party' politics. I'm guided by over-arching principles. Show me a liberal who fights for the consitution as it was written, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom and I vote for them. But since the progressive liberal movement is decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-fiscal responsibility, and anti-consitution they frequently get the stinkeye.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable.

It is comments like this that cause me to - as you put it - 'shout'. If you really believe what you just said then I don't know what to say. You have the evidence of DECADES of solid, inarguable proof that the government being in charge of medical issues is never held accountable for tremendous waste, mismanagement, and outright misappropriation & graft. How anyone can look at programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and still think that putting government in charge of such matters is a good idea is beyond me. The proper solution is more freedom - not less. Medical care has been a government mis-managed fiasco in the US ever since Ted Kennedy's stupid HMO bill screwed up the relationship between buyers and providers.

Cedona,

You seem to like videos by Youtube user suragr. Please take the time to review the Posting Guidelines where it says:

"While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love."

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If your post is not a Sponsored Video (the only allowed way to promote your own content) and any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

* The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).

* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.

* You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.

* You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.

* You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

Who? FOX news?!?!? (frothing & drooling at the mouth & subsequent wiping of foam from lips)

Quit your conspiracy theory ramblings. This was Rasumussen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The internals of the data plainly show that the only people who really support this bill are 'party line' Democrats (who support the bill 71%). Party line Republicans oppose it (81%). But - most importantly - 69% of UNAFFILIATED VOTERS oppose the bill. Facts. Learn to FIND them as opposed to just assuming your Democrat puppet-masters are telling the truth.

But yes - I'm sure if you stacked your poll with all Democrat, uninsured people you'd get the numbers you WANT (I.E. what Franken calls 'choosing your facts'). However, you would NOT get an actual measurement of what the American public at large think.

And yes - large scale federal powers without checks, balances, supervision, or a Consitutional mandate are against hte spirit and letter of prescribed, enumerated powers. The Bill of Rights is designed to PREVENT this kind of massive centralization of power. The kind of power grab this bill represents is the antithesis of American Values, the US Constitution, and all things good and decent. The left likes to propogandize it by making it sound like charity. But large, centrally managed government programs are the opposite of charity. They are tyranny with a bad coat of shiny paint to distract the stupid and the ignorant.

And - as I've explained many times - I'm not a Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, Constitutional Constructionist. I'm no slave to party politics - unlike others I could name.

And I'd love it if Franken would pull out the ENTIRE bill being discussed and make it public for everyone to read. The issue here being that Ried & the Democrats are deliberately HIDING huge portions of this bill from the public, and even from the Republicans in the Senate. THune couldn't possibly have read the 'whole bill' because the Democrats have been stonewalling it and hiding it - only dribbling out snippets they want. "Choosing your facts" again, eh? Franken, heal thyself.

How did this issue go from the topic, to firearms and health care? Are the conservatives so desperate to tag anything involving legal questions to these two issues?

If I understand it correctly. People voted at one point to elect people to office. This was purely under the constitution for how people get elected as representatives, senators and even a president. Those people, created the highway system as a federal system. That way laws created effected all the states evenly. Roads and vehicles were given strict standards on how each were created. Yes, there was plenty of leway given to looks, but the mechanics were made to keep things in one state the same as another. With the introduction of highways, this was given more consideration. Yes, this is a HUGE simplifacation of historical events in the US. Lets just agree, that's along the lines of how things happened in our country.

Some where along that route (pun unintended), law makers decided the concept of a license to show who understood the rules of the road, and agree to abid by them. That way, if you were caught speeding, you could not say "hey, I didnt know I couldnt go that fast." You could argue if the police man had made a mistake in court. Notice, the court is in this equation. An so, there were licenses for motorcycles, trucks, and even for special vehicles (i.e. school buses). The licenses provide a meager funding to the state to help maintain roads. They also allowed the license to be used to prove one's age (for nudie bars and beer), to help in some purchases (i.e. firearms), and as a form of identification (i.e. aquiring a job).

I as the motorist should not have to ask if the green pickup truck in front of me is in current register. I should have some thought the truck could past a inspection, if one was given on the spot (assuming, any grand-fathered clauses, due to the vehicles age). Without proper plates or registation, I could not tell that. In addition, what happens if this guy hits someone on a cross walk?

"The drive was in a green pickup truck." "Did you get a license plate?" "No, there wasn't one."

No, this guy is simply trying to avoid being responsible for his actions. Which is quite typical for a republican/conservative these days.

But the issue regarding whether one has a consitutional right to own a firearm, is a murky question at best. Since, the NRA types, conviently ignore the first 1/2 of the 2nd Amendment like it doesnt exist. No, I think we'd need the US Supreme court to weigh in on the issue some day.

The issue with health care is neither a right or a privilage. Its a needed concept.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^haha.

From the posting guidelines:

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

* The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
* You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
* You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
* You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

Finally, submitting a video that is considered spam falls within our definition of a self-link. If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.

Exempt from our self-link definition is an embed that is supplied to another member's post when fixing a Dead Pool video. Bear in mind that this exemption does not apply to your own posts.

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time. The federal mafia collects taxes from the States, which in effect makes them slave-states with no real sovereignty, and then the States, in order to recoup their losses, must fight for "pork", which is their money being spent on garbage the federal mafia wants, not necessarily what they want. Career politicians live or die depending on how much pork they can bring to their home states. I recall one dickweed senator, angry at Texas, saying, "Texas gets back 80 cents of every dollar they send to DC!" Somehow to the dickweed, 80 cents recouped from shipping the money out of state is worth more than a dollar kept. Madness.

There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.

It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power granb. The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.

Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

The Constitution limits government power and says any powers not expressly given to the federal mafia is given to the States.

Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

The 16th Amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Furthermore, there is nothing in the Consitution which circumscribes how Congress may spend those revenues, except as it may infringe on the rights of the States or the People (10th Amendment). In fact, Congress is explicitly granted the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (Article I, Section . If the good health of its citizens is not considered part of the general welfare of the United States, what can be?

You might have a constitutional argument against a single payer system by claiming it infringes the rights of the People to rip each other off, but you definitely do not have one against a government sponsored health insurance plan designed to compete with private insurance.

Definitely a self link, here's another one: http://www.videosift.com/video/m00n-Frag-Clip-1-edited-by-Morf

FAQ:
What exactly consitutes a self link?

If any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:
* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.

*ban

*ban

From the FAQ:

1. Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

* The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
* You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
* You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
* You are somehow represented in the content of the video (whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically) without the approval of a site administrator.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Stakeout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9UJM0PCdg

Sorry, but you have violated the posting guidelines.

From the Faq:

Posting Guidelines ¶

So you have a sweet video you'd like to post. That's great. We appreciate all of the additions that help keep VideoSift alive and kicking, but sometimes videos are posted that really shouldn't be on VideoSift. We don't like to delete your videos and *ban you. Honestly, it makes us sad. With that in mind, we've put together a few guidelines to which you must adhere whenever posting a video. Please read these before you make your first post!

1.

Please do not self link.

While you may see this site as a great way to promote a project you are working on or promoting, it would be bad for our content if everyone just put up videos of them and their friends doing random things. If you are associated with a project you think is truly amazing and must be shared, please contact us. We'll take a look at it and if we also think it's great too, we'll post it for you. If you attempt to post it yourself, your video and account will be deleted. Hey, it's harsh, but it's harsh love.

What exactly consitutes a self link?

If any of the following is true about a particular video you are considering submitting, it is a self link, with NO exceptions for any member:

* The video is associated with your account on the video host (i.e., you uploaded it to YouTube, Google Video, etc.).
* You played any role, no matter how large or small, in any aspect of the production of the video.
* You are in any way responsible for or involved in marketing, promoting, or any other manner of proliferating the video.
* You could receive any form of compensation (monetary or otherwise) as a result of the submission or subsequent views.
* You are somehow represented in the content of the video whether photographically, artistically, audibly, or metaphorically.

If you self link, regardless of your logic or explanation, you are violating the posting guidelines. There are no exceptions for any reason, whatsoever.

Finally, submitting a video that is considered spam falls within our definition of a self-link. If you create an account solely to post a video for whatever reason, but do not actually participate in VideoSift in any other way before or after, you may be considered a spammer/self-promoter and your account is subject to banning.