I did. Even left Google open and talked about dog toys, then went to daily mail, Fox, and abc news, no dog toy ads for me.

Congratulations! Your comment on ABC News: Purity Balls: Lifting the Veil on Special Ceremony has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 19 Badge!

Your video, ABC News: Purity Balls: Lifting the Veil on Special Ceremony, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Since it won't load, I can't say, but they seem to admit it's just a single person's claim in the title, so that's NOT fake news, just news of a false claim.

EDIT: You stinking dirty lying bastard...I tried it again, and it tried to install a virus. Good thing I have Norton that caught and blocked it. ABC news is not hosted on a .co site, so it's not right from ABC news. Don't post links to virus infected sites, and claim they are well known American news sites.

Reporting that someone made a claim, even a false one, is not fake news....claiming the false claim is true (pizzagate) is fake news.

If there are others, why don't you show them? How about others that aren't just virus hosting sites...not that I'll trust ANY link you post now...you lied.

The link works fine for me. Right from ABC news.

Or since you are calling it BS we can conclude that ABC is FAKE NEWS .

There are others like it.

I don't know if this link will open---
This is Donald's reply:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-father-fallen-soldier-ive-made-lot/story?id=41015051

In his first response to a searing charge from bereaved Army father Khizr Khan that he’d “sacrificed nothing” for his country, Donald Trump claimed that he had in fact sacrificed by employing “thousands and thousands of people.” He also suggested that Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim and questioned whether Khan’s words were his own.

“Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?” Trump said in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. “I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard.”

There was an interview on ABC that I was watching at work, and the lady being interviewed made more or less the same points as this article from the Grauniad, Dilma Rousseff: Brazilian congress votes to impeach president http://gu.com/p/4tdg9/stw

She said that many of the minor parties spent a lot of time explaining their votes, and that many of them had nothing to do with either corruption or Rousseff... so many Brazilians think it's all politicised and partisan and little to do with any real wrongdoing.

It'll possibly show up here in a day or so - http://www.abc.net.au/transcripts/ (I think it was probably ABC News, Series 2016 | Episode 77). I kinda wish I'd paid more attention to the who/what/when/where/why/how.

The end of this BBC News report highlights something that Greenwald said, which is that the supporters of impeachment are rich and white, and those who oppose it are poor and likely to be mixed race (skip to 1:37):



p.s. This isn't the transcript I was talking about, but yesterday is missing from the list (?!?) It does have some details I haven't seen much elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4445246.htm

Yet more Bullshit from the left. *lies

Any immigrant having a job is one less for an American.

5 workers in 1990 now 3 to sustain 1retiree. So we need to allow immigrants to be my sugar daddy when I retire. Only the left would come up with this excuse of Pimping of immigrants.

Immigrants ARE a drain on public budgets 11Billion in generated taxes is jack squat to what we spend on taking care of them.

ABC news indicated...
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317

"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "


Another report indicates $346 Billion per year.
http://www.rense.com/general81/dtli.htm


Net rates of immigration has fallen 10% . Yep the shitty economy will do that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/



He is right the game is rigged at the top. The rich want cheep labor and tha is not you. So yes immigrants are taking your job.


Sure today they might have a low skill job today but their children will grow up and take a good middle / upper class job which use to be yours or you childs.

Apparently there's yet another Gruber video. (There could be a Gruber Film Festival!)

("OMG!") Fox gets flack for, you know, exposing Democrats like Pelosi, but it's she who now claims that she doesn't know who Gruber is, despite invoking him many times in the campaigning for the bill's passage.

At least Gruber tells the truth about ACA just being another tax on "the people."

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

That's the truth also about, "tax the rich," or "tax corporations." Corporations will just pass on the cost to "consumers." Tax anyone always means tax "the people." But the masses of "the American voter," like voters anywhere it seems, or at least the "progressive ones," for whatever reason don't understand that. There is no "free" government service. No "free" education. No "free" housing. Someone will pay for it and more likely than not those at the bottom will pay for it.

EDIT:
There's at least 7 Gruber videos now.

"It’s one thing for Americans to suspect that their President lies to them. It’s quite another to hear a key Obama adviser boast of it." (Videosift pundits disagree, of course.)

From the Washington Post :

"Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"Then, after Obamacare passed, his administration cynically turned around and argued before the Supreme Court that it was in fact a tax. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, “why do you keep saying tax?,” drawing peals of laughter."

"The reason he called it a tax is because — as Jonathan Gruber now admits — members of the Obama team knew all along that it was a tax. They intentionally deceived Americans about it because if they had called it a tax, Obamacare would never have become law."

* * *

All of these videos, of course, make little difference to the partisan Democrats, not unlike partisan Republicans when they get exposed. But they do make a difference with the "independents" who decide elections: the ones who can vote one way or the other. So the Democrats can expect for this to continue until the next election.

Good things to know: The "anti- commandeering doctrine."
Know the laws of the land.

https://gma.yahoo.com/police-chopper-captures-romantic-proposal-marry-132152749--abc-news-topstories.html

Mr LoveBug. Thought you might enjoy. (I didn't watch the video, I read the story...)

I learned this from ABC news back in the 90s.

The plot thickens:

"A Boy Scout leader who came under fire for pushing over an ancient boulder in a national park filed a suit last month claiming he was suffering permanent "disability" and "impairment" from an auto accident four years ago.

Taylor initially faced scrutiny after a video of him pushing over a Jurassic era rock formation in the Goblin Valley State Park in Utah went viral.

Taylor, a Boy Scout leader, told ABC News that he should have handled the incident differently but thought the boulder was dangerous and thought it would be safer to push it over.

"The Boy Scouts didn't teach me to do this," Taylor told ABC News. "Would I do it again? Yes, with a ranger standing there. That's what we should have done.""

Video should be in the Down-under channel, 3x Aussies on the 7.30 Report which is an Aussie ABC news show.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.