TYT Network (new WTF?! channel): http://www.youtube.com/user/whattheflickshow
Follow TYT on Twitter: https://twitter.com/theyoungturks
Join the TYT Facebook Fan Page: http://tinyurl.com/yblkjqr
Follow TYT on Google Buzz: http://www.google.com/profiles/tytnationhq
Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews
Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com
Duration : 0:3:45
[youtube WBwrjpTwhoA]
Nor do I, and even …
Nor do I, and even extended to non-Americans, too. However, that is not to what I was alluding. I am talking about the rhetoric of the extremes! Gladly, in a democracy, there is a more or less free market of ideas; and it is within this competing grounds that some measure of collective good arises. However, I do see a danger to the encroachment of govt. paternalism.
@whiff1962
I …
@whiff1962
I don’t see granting the same rights and protections to all Americans as extremism.
The Great Society …
The Great Society movement of LBJ was certainly progressive for its time. I am not against the appeal to Constitutional precidence; much to the contrary. I am not so comfortable with much of the extremism, right or left.
@whiff1962
Hate …
@whiff1962
Hate crime laws are different from anti discrimination laws.
The hate crime law has been on the books since the 60′s.
It included race, religion and gender. Sexual orientation was added last year.
In the last 40 years, no one has ever been convicted for speech under the hate crime law. There is absolutely no precident for it.
I am a Libertarian, …
I am a Libertarian, so you are way off on your assessment! I am for less govt. intrusion, an appeal to the U.S. constitution, and greater personal freedom. Moreover, my political outlook does not see the govt. as serving any collective interest in passing federal hate-crimes, suited specifically for gays and lesbians, as some would like to see even speech against gays as punishable! The latter IS a Constitutional issue!
Yours is a category …
Yours is a category mistake. If your position is that I must be a Fundamentalist, because I choose to be critical of a separate law for those who feel themselves victimized, then that, in itself, is an abridgement of my right to free speech. I think that lefties are inclined to see the mote in the eye of others, while not seeing the beam in their own! Are you for greater first amendment limitations? For what ends?!
I personally agree …
I personally agree with you, being gay is not immoral. However, many do see it as a moral issue. As for making a lifestyle and sexual orientation a matter for legislative protectitions, above and beyond civil law protections, is a slippery slope indeed. And civil laws and anti-hate laws are not necessarily commensurable, and I don’t agree with the spirit of the argument saying contrariwise!
And I dare comment …
And I dare comment on the kind of social and political landscape, where a “minority” presence would be any better protected and served by preferential legislation. I don’t know about all that goes into the prospective hate-crime law, but such laws would have to be generally agreeable to the state. Are there hate-crime laws to protect all the other “victimized” minorities; and many they are.
I understand about …
I understand about the “tyranny of the majority”, as I, too mentioned this. However, as it is a democracy that we live in, the people must decide. If a state passes such laws, that is the will of the people, or, is it the tour de force of radicalized politics? I don’t see the political will, presently, of gay hate crime laws being passed. The laws passed to protect gays would be more punitive than they would be for respective laws already on the books.
@whiff1962
…
@whiff1962
sometimes the courts have to decide that the constitution is there to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
That is how the black civil rights movement was able to succeed, and the gay rights movement will have to advance through.
@whiff1962
Good …
@whiff1962
Good luck with changing some of the strongest constitutional admendments.
Sounds like an extreme right wing agenda to remove constitutional protections for people in this country.
Do you want people to have the right to refuse services and jobs to just gays, or race, gender, religion as well?
I would Love the right to deny and fire the few christian fundamentalists in my company.
@whiff1962
We …
@whiff1962
We are just talking about the anti discrimination laws.
They originally existed in the constitution.
Religion and national origion were later expanded to include rece, gender and age.
Now we want to add sexual orientation.
I don’t see how this is some radical left wing agenda. This is an expansion on an original constitutional law. How is securing justice and liberty anything else than all American?
I don’t desparage …
I don’t desparage your obvious left-leaning political motivations, however, your views are consistent with the radical left, in that you see govt, as a kind of protective parent, when in fact, it is govt. that would make a mess. I don’t see how preferential laws, ie. more jail time, greater fines, would deter anyone. It might have the opposite affect!
The desire to …
The desire to legislate morality, and social values and norms, has been the motive for much legislation. However, I think there is much to be said about teaching our children to be more respectful and considerate of others; and this doesn’t take legislation, just good instruction. The zeal of the oppressed does make for good left wing, radical politics, but, it doesn’t always make for a ground swell of popular support.
A correction: True …
A correction: True democracy should not be a majoritarian polity.
I understand that …
I understand that one mark of a true democracy must not be about the majority drowning out the minority. And at present, there is just about every group out there clamoring to be heard. In the case of enacting laws to “protect” minority groups, I can see a real legislative mess. Don’t get me wrong, but I don’t see how radical left-wing agenda appeal to most peeps. I am a Libertarian, and would appreciate less politicizing in public life.
@whiff1962
The …
@whiff1962
The constitution does not give necessary protection to all citizens.
The anti discrimination law include gender, race, religion, national origion, and age.
sexual orientation is not included. a few states and municipalities have included us, but most do not.
Recently Virginia removed us from the law and sent a letter to different departments saying they can and should discriminate against gays.
Yes, but special …
Yes, but special legal provisions for ANYONE, within a democracy, is not democratic. The U.S. Constitution already gives the necessary protections for all citizens.
Didn’t this …
Didn’t this hypocritical resign right after this? There’s a Senator in Idaho who needs a date.
This guy said that …
This guy said that people who are against gay rights are gays.. that’s ridiculous. I know a lot of people who hate gays and they are defiantly straight.
@Blairtim69
“…we …
@Blairtim69
“…we will have our Liberty!”
Yes you will. The only question is when. And the answer to that question is how much of an effect conservatism will have, which by definition is the tendency to want to prevent change. It is the inertia and unwillingness to change of people, glorified into an organization.
And acting on the lesson of the poem “First they came…”, everyone should defend each other, and support every righteous movement, even if it has no effect on us.
typical republican …
typical republican smh
a small minority of …
a small minority of ancient egyptian culture engaged in gay sex. It was looked down upon because it spread disease.
a small minority of …
a small minority of ancient egyptian culture engaged in gay sex. It was looked down upon because it spread disease.
Why is everyone …
Why is everyone going on about whether or not it’s a choice? Being black isn’t a choice, obviously, but if it were, it wouldn’t be wrong for people to choose to be black. They wouldn’t be obligated not to make that choice. Pedophilic attraction doesn’t appear to be a choice, but that doesn’t make it right, either.
Whether or not it is a choice has nothing to do with whether or not it’s acceptable.
Incidentally, it doesn’t appear to be a choice, but either way it’s not a problem.