If she doesn't want her signature to be on gay marriage licenses, she might want to get a job that doesn't involve signing gay marriage licenses. A muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol probably shouldn't get a job at a liquor store. If she goes by god's authority, she doesn't get to have government authority. It's pretty simple, really.
+GeneticJulia Too much common sense in one comment! That sort of logic could blow that Kim Davis' mind. I have to say, common sense is one of the most important types of critical thinking lacking in today's society. It drives me nuts! BTW, brilliant comment, wish there were more people like you out there.
It's ok for her to not have her signature on marriage licences. If she was absent for whatever reason, then the county executive judge can issue them and they will carry a generic country clerk stamp. She asked for her signature to be removed in the court room and the judge did so. She or her lawyers realized that the martyrdom journey had come to an end so they had to move the goalposts and she freaked out at the solution she requested being granted. She said that generic stamp referred to her so it was actually not a solution. Eventually the legislature came back into session and made some changes for her but by that time her freak out had stopped and she said it wasn't necessary. But please, someone primary her in 2018 or run against her or her son. It's a pretty high paying job.
I'm a Muslim, therefore I won't issue a business license to restaurants and grocery stores if they plan to sell pork products. I'm a Mormon, therefore I won't issue a liquor or tobacco license to bars or gas stations because those products are against my faith I'm a Hindu, therefore I won't issue a gun license or allow a military recruitment station to be set up because my religion is largely founded upon pacifism. I'm Amish. I won't allow your building permit because you plan to put plumbing and electricity in your house. I wonder if Mike Huckabee would stand up just as hard, tall, and proud for those positions.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Right? I'm a Nihilist, therefore I won't employ any religious people to do any job that can or may issue anything to anyone. Welcome to the unemployment line, where my nihilist brethren will promptly tell you to piss off because they won't be issuing you assistance.
And this doesn't even exclude the fact that religious views can be easily exploitive; a person can make up a religion to pursue an agenda if we lived in this kind of society.
Atheists rule out a creator... But yet they put unproven eternal vacuums and multiverses in its place! Hilarious! Atheists believe in magic, without the magician!!
@@fairwarning007 They're saying that atheists believe in things we can't understand just like theists do. I don't think they know that no one actually claims that infinite space and multiverse theory are fact. Basically "Takes one to know one"
"The right of a man to swing his fist ends where another man's nose begins."-Ben Franklin Learned that in high school. You think more people would know that but I guess not.
Man, so good to see a video from you. You're one of the people among TJ that helped me convert out of religion, always love your content and how you can voice stuff so flawlessly
+Livenderrr He wasn't defending violent behavior from minority groups he just said there are factors to why anyone would act violent also TJ lost some weight.
***** Again how is he a SJW when not only he makes fun of them but actually use factors when people show statistics. It seems like SJW is the ASJW word for racist.
+Livenderrr ah, spotted the AIU fanboy. Riddle me this, because TJ asked it before and no one had a good come back: When faced with the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, how would you react if someone said: "Men being treated unfairly by the law? Oh, cry me a river, men just need to stop committing crimes."
nRXpAa8E6UML "You absolutely cannot treat someone who belongs to a certain group differently, just because that group of people statistically commits more crimes." No one has ever fucking said this. The regressive narrative is "don't call out black people for their insanely high level of violent crime rates because some cops are racist and the system treats them unfairly" which boils down to "we should all treat black people differently because black people are treated differently."
Attaching news clips to your video is not a violation of copyright. News shops do it all the time under fair use. However, it's a violation of "UA-cam law". In "UA-cam law" you get burned for any attachment that their crawlers detect *could* be a violation.
+thought2007 Totally agree! UA-cam Content ID sucks for the video producer and is slanted to prevent THEM (UA-cam) from getting sued - at the cost of the producer. Fair Use? Ha ha ha ha ha! they never heard of it! What is ironic is how UNEVENLY the "UA-cam law" is applied! (In a way, this is a good thing or UA-cam would be a wasteland of "kitten in a cup" videos - the only thing that they'd ever allow) Content ID is such a BAD system, There are SO many videos that violate the "UA-cam law" and get away with it, while others get creamed within 30 seconds of a video posting. Example of how bad this gets, SONY got a DISNEY UA-cam channel closed down for violating their copyright. Uh ... SONY OWNS freakin Disney! So SONY managed to SHUT THEMSELVES DOWN on UA-cam! Way to go SONY! Protect yourselves right into oblivion!
Allowing "sincerely held religious beliefs" to supercede civil liberties is tantamount to throwing out the Bill of Rights and becoming a Theocracy...full stop. Practicing religious freedom does not mean you can use it to take away other people's rights.
Vlavitir glutginskiya bushwa. She demanded to be paid for not doing her job, all while breaking one of the laws her own beliefs holds in the Top 10. Also violating that whole "judge ye not" thing her savior talked about. And for the record, you are free to practice your religion. I'm free to not practice it. And you are not free to force me to abide by your religion, end of discussion.
Go check out Jaclyn Glenns video on this..... she had 3 time the veiws but stole your exact argument, in some places, word for word......thought you should know.
+Theoretical Bullshit I wouldn't want to cause a problem, but I just found it odd that your arguments appeared in her video 3 days after yours was posted. more so than anything, I think you should take a look at her video and see what you think about it and proceed from there....I love her and her videos, but it seemed very odd and unfair if there truly was foul play here.
+Samantha Wood There are only so many things to say about this topic and any reasonable and logical person will come to these same ideas. I was more or less on the same page as Jacklyn and TB on this whole situation before watching their videos. Human are pattern-seeking animals so it only makes sense why you would see a connection.
+Theoretical Bullshit It's ABSOLUTE plagiarism. It's not the first time she has done this either. She even copied your "living under a rock" thing at the beginning. She used all of your hypothetical examples. Sometimes WORD FOR WORD. She cited the EXACT SAME MSNBC interview. She basically saw your vid and just copied it. I unsubbed and unfollowed her. She's a thief.
+Kristaps Vaivars No, BULLSHIT. She blatantly just copied him. She made ONLY the arguments he provides here using WORD FOR WORD his examples. She doesn't expand or elaborate on any of his ideas and she only uses his ideas, at times just lifting from his script. Don't give me this crap about 'only so many things can be said'--these two videos are practically identical. She's a thief.
If Kim Davis had, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, quit her job because it was now incompatible with her religious beliefs, she would have been acting legally. Instead, she decided to act in civil disobedience, which often results in imprisonment. When someone opposes the law because they are protesting it, they should expect to go to jail. Recently, I heard a news program discuss two Muslim truckers who were fired from their job because they refused to traffic un-kosher meats. Bringing pig meat from one location to another isn't against the Qur'an, any more than signing documents to allow a same-sex marriage is against the Bible This is the state of "religious freedom", that people now think that simply allowing others to "sin" is the same as sinning themselves.
+Supernova Kasprzak If they won't do their job, of course they're gonna be fired. I hate when religious people act like there's some injustice in losing their job because of that or even the fact that they have these complaints at all. Like you said, they weren't eating it and it needs to be transported regardless of how they feel about it.
Heather Kim Davis got to keep her job. Republicans were indignant about her going to jail, but she spent a very short period there and then went back to getting paid but not doing the work she was supposed to get paid for (because she still refuses to sign gay marriage licenses). So "of course they [should] get fired", but we can't even expect that. :(
05:19 It's interview, not inverview. Plus Kim has all those other verses to cherry-pick (besides her double standard for meeting the Biblical definition of adultress) about obeying the government in the NT: Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves...." Titus 3:1, "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed..." 1 Peter 2:13-14, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution...."
This video was a 'suggested' title, and I am SO thankful I watched it. This is, without exception, the most cogent and articulate explanation of what this whole situation is about that I have heard. Thank you for your analysis and opinion!
SEVEN YEARS LATER and Kim Davis is STILL fighting two cases against her in court. She was found to have violated the constitutional rights of the gay and hetero couples to whom she refused to issue a marriage license, and she doesn't qualify for "qualified immunity," a get-out-of-penalty-free card, because she knew she was violating the couples' constitutional rights when she did so. Really all that's left is deciding how much money Davis has to pay, but she has the worst lawyer ever who keeps filing motions up and down the federal judiciary.
If the Law says 'thou shalt' thou hast no reason to disagree. If one is employed by the government that made a Law one is duty bound to uphold and obey that Law. There are no excuses.
At least she's not ruling your entire country and was prosecuted... Here in Iraq, those types of people are all around me and they rule the country. Be thankful guys for living in a secular world in which you can easily identify yourself as whatever you want! I'm an Atheist and it's really awful that I can't publicly identify myself as one.
You're a bad-ass. The best atheist youtuber there is. In fact, I believe your arguments against religion are the strongest and most respectful I've seen in the atheist community.
I remember back when this was a thing, a lot of Davis' defenders said that her critics just blindly obeyed the law without thinking about whether that law is moral or not. A counter-argument which immediately sprang to mind for me, but which I never really saw anyone use is: Isn't Kim Davis doing the same thing? She just thinks that God said being gay is a sin or whatever. She can't actually point to any harm that same-sex marriages cause. She's just going along with what she thinks God says.
I can't imagine what it would be like for a gay man working her job if he did the same thing to her: "Oh i'm sorry, I don't issue marriage licenses to a straight christian, it goes against my beliefs that men are sexy and women are icky." If that were to happen, this wouldn't have become anything really.
Oh yeah definitely. Then there would've been Christians saying things like "Gays can't give out marriage licenses because-" blah blah nonsense and bible whatever.
Just discovered your videos. They are like a banquet for the mind. Fluent, logical and rigorously expressed. I'm savouring the opportunity of sampling more of your backlog (just spent an hour already starting on that!). Please keep posting.
+Tina Kills i'm confused...so you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is ok? Or you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is wrong but you recognize the separation of church and state? Or are you a Christian by name but you don't really believe in a lot of the things from the bible?
You can probably put the links in clickable annotations at the respective moments of the video. There's also this new “suggested video” feature, which standardizes UA-cam links in a white button on the top.
Scott, Scott, Scott... When people like Huckabee say that they want religious freedom, they mean that they want _Christians_ to be able to freely do whatever they want. And by Christians they mean themselves and whomever incidentally agrees with them on something.
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) Well no....he wants *certain* Christians to be able to freely do whatever they want. He's against those dang liberal Christians forcing their beliefs on True Christians (TM).
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) But never those _other_ christians, who aren't true scotsmen for _reasons_. And then they passive-aggressively wonder out loud why we need a secular state. Its your your own goddamn protection, you fucking morons! Argh! It's so different christians who think you're hellbound don't get to tell YOU what to do either, you damn morons! I dunno about you but it gets rather tiring trying to defend the rights of people obsessed with their own destruction. At some point, if someone wants to commit suicide hard enough, there's no longer any point in stopping them. But their suicide will be ours, so we have to keep at it. Fucking argh.
Up until now, I wasn't too keen on people using Davis's past marital history against her. But your twist on the argument is far more persuasive. Glad you're making videos again.
I love your concatenation of circumstances which would put her in Limbo ( which, apparently doesn't exist anymore). By the way, did you notice that someone has snuck in and pinched all of your pictures from the frames? Nice to see you back and I hope to see more of your logic at work.
Firstly, you do not need to apologize for not uploading a video for a while. When I do see one of your videos pop up on my subscription page, I'm thrilled...but a lot of work goes into making a video, and you're an actor and are in front of a video camera for a lot of your day anyway. Also, you are not stupid. Copyright laws are stupid. Also, you would think that since so many people use clips on UA-cam, that you can, too. But I guess you first have to join some group that has lawyers to fight such takedown notices to get that special ability. I know. It's not fair. Anyway, my main point is that your videos are fantastic, and I love watching them. You are logical, compassionate, and extremely well-spoken (your language is beautiful). (Oh yeah, and I'm not even gay...) What more can I say? I just love your videos!
+Eirik Havre We'll find out tomorrow when she goes back to work. If she doesn't do what she's supposed to, the judge said he'll gladly put her back in jail. Personally, I hope she rots in there.
I feel I should post something relating to the content of your video, as opposed to my reaction of your reappearance. This is why I subscribed to this channel! You encapsulate everything that is swirling around in my head in such a coherent, streamlined way. Welcome back. Please don't take another 5 years.
Kim Davis's claim of religious persecution is entirely disingenuous. It's not about her religious freedom, but rather her desire to obstruct others' civil rights, and to show her contempt for homosexuals.
I'm like 11/10 happy that you're back on UA-cam, however briefly. You're always just the right balance of eloquent and snide in the way you present your arguments, carry on good sir!
Glad to have you back! Since I'm not a resident of the Us I honestly don't know a lot about what's going on, so this has been eye opening in more than one way.
An absolutely logical and cogent argument worthy of presentation before the Supreme Court. I have read through the original court decision, and even the precedent decisions leading up to it. I've also read the available documentation in the contempt decision (and remain bewildered as to why there haven't been sixty-plus similar cases and decisions); but, acknowledging one person can't catch everything and I undoubtedly have missed several, thus is an argument I have not seen and is an exemplary basis for a closing argument and summation, and a shame that numerous peoples have not been beaten around the head and shoulders with it as punishment for their arrogant hypocrisy! An extremely good job, one to be proud of, and I'm sorry I just barely became aware of it! It is one I'm going to salt away to be brought back out for appropriate use
As always, the voice of reason. Definitely one of the best videos I've seen on this subject. Just...could you come back just a little sooner next time, eh?
Very well said. It just astounds me how many people have been so quick to pat her on the head and commiserate with her about how unfair it is, how she's the victim, she's so brave for standing up for her religion, etc. She's being congratulated for being discriminatory. "You poor baby, you're not allowed to be hateful at your discretion at your government job." It's messed up man!
Welcome back! Now do we have to keep creating time-sensitive religiously-themed controversy to get you to do videos? Because we will, if that's what it takes.
I'm at 4:24 and wanted to point out that she did essentially answer that question. She claims that part of her reason for denying licenses is so gay people will see the error of their ways, and turn to God. She says she wishes people had done something similar for her when she was committing adultery. She of course ignores the fact that she is still committing adultery in the eyes of God because her first marriage is still valid biblically.
+AntiCitizenX I know but UA-cam errors on the side of the flawed logic of guilty until proven innocent in cases similar to these. Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn.
+Ryan Swanson " Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn." I am so going to steal that line and use it relentlessly against people who refuse to engage.
Ryan Swanson They will try to block your clip at first, but if you appeal on the grounds of fair use, then my understanding is that the burden of proof shifts back to the original copyright owner. I've had to deal with this exact sort of thing before, and I was allowed to upload shortly after.
Came here at Jaclyn Glenn's suggestion and glad that I did: you summed that up beautifully. Got yourself a subscriber (get the impression you're not going to flooding my inbox, right? ;-0 )
+Harold Weaver Smith That's cool bro. Did Jaclyn Glenn happen to also mention she plagiarized his video thus had to take her original video down after getting caught red handed?
Show me the Bible verse from one of the Gospels where Jesus states that he does not approve same sex marriage? If no one can find a verse where Jesus states anything on this, we are faced with a serious question. If Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ, who in the heck created this hidden Christian doctrine?
+Sean Grimes Old testament, and a lot of people are not following all of jesus his words. They are mostly following Paul his words. Jesus himself said the following. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Of course people spin this by making fulfilling the law mean actually abolishing the law. Well that is in more modern times when so many of the old testament laws cannot be followed anymore.
+Nathan Wubs Yeah, I know those verses. It just seems hypocritical of Christians to down play all of the horrific events in the old testament when they want to steer people towards Christianity, but those same Christians will almost instantly use the old testament when they want to exclude people from having certain human rights.
Sean Grimes Of course as that was instilled into them to be hypocrites. for most of them its not their own fault. Its habits that have been long ingrained in them. It mostly does grow softer every generation. With sadly the occasional revival here and there.
So good to hear your perfect logic after so many months. I hope these 780 plus comments show you how much people miss your voice. I only discovered you about 6 months ago and Scott, you have the kind of mind that really makes me wonder how a person can be so damn intelligent. We need you brother. That is if you still wish to proceed.
talleyrand Huh. Well I basically mocked his pro-Israel stance and especially took issue with his stance that not being pro-Israel makes one an anti-Semite. I also mocked him using the term "anti-Semite" without seeming to understand it's meaning.
I like Israel but it is a little obnoxious that any criticism of Israel or Jewish people you are immediately labeled a anti-Semite. When you are banned you can still watch the videos but cannot comment right?
That was one of the best, most well presented arguments that I have ever heard on YT. Not only do you understand the subject matter really well, but you are able to explain it so clearly. Excellent!
An elegant and well put argument. I enjoyed it a lot. But there is a simpler and more fundamental argument to be made here that you touch tangentially from a number of perspectives. And these different perspectives all show the brilliance of the founding fathers in not allowing a state establishment of religion. The bottom line is that Kim Davis is acting as and for the state in her capacity as the clerk. It is not essentially her as an individual who is endorsing the application and license. If she's not personally comfortable putting a stamp on the document, then she can let a staff member do it. Yet she first asserted that wouldn't be valid, and she, as herself, wouldn't allow it. If she's not comfortable with that then she's free to resign. A large part of the whole Christian persecution 'movement' can be resolved by the same reasoning. The so called rights they want involve recognition of and support of religious practices or principles by the state. Sure, they had it their way at least in places for a very long time. That doesn't make it right, or Constitutional. Slavery and suppression of women were legal practices too. Both were supported by religious arguments. We're slowly growing up though, and coming to realize that discrimination based on religious values is a distinction without a difference. The state has no business or basis in denying real and substantial rights to anyone absent real and substantial danger.
I simply could not have put this better myself. I wish more people would focus on what's actually going on instead of just jumping on one side of the fence...either way. BTW. ..I know you're a busy man but we do ever so miss you here to you know :)
glukolover My thoughts are that progressive liberals argue in one big echo chamber and rarely come up with original arguments. However, what Jaclyn did was blatant theft. She took his words, put them into her mouth and spit them back out into the camera for her sheepish UA-cam audience of halfwits to eat up. What she did is completely disgraceful and she should be shamed out of existence in terms of having a UA-cam career.
The Moral Crusader Did we even watch the same video? Besides rewording it, the arguments are still exactly the same as TYT. Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber. (I am sensing projection here) There is nothing wrong with using the same argument when it's the correct one to use. You use the right tool for the job. Kim Davis is a vile piece of shit, I don't care who the messenger is.
glukolover **"Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber."** There's a difference. There's a religious doctrine binding the religious right together and they pride themselves on having a binding ideology. Progressives pride themselves on being "independent thinkers" and being different from the right when in all reality, they're exactly the same in that aspect. That's what makes them hypocrites. Also, you guys are willing to call out Kim Davis as a "vile piece of shit" when the law suits you. But i didn't hear a PEEP from you liberals about the "rule of law" when Kate Steinly got murdered by an illegal because of San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy that violated federal law. In fact, most of you defended San Francisco.
The Moral Crusader A: I didn't do anything, I'm not even particularly aware of the Kate Steinly story. Chances are it's apples and oranges, but I would need to know the details first. Which get's to my 2nd point. B: Being an "independent thinker" doesn't mean you can't think the same thing, come to the same conclusions on an issue as other people. I mean that's just plain fucking ludicrous. So every progressive must have totally alien ideas on any give issue. Is that really what your saying? Because no progressive would take that position, because it's fucking insane. (Also I'm using what I understand to be the American meaning of Progressive, despite it having a lot of baggage because the political landscape in the US is volatile clusterfuck) Being a independent thinker just means coming to your own conclusions, even if said conclusion ends up being a consensus. It's not what you think, it's how you think.
Scott, you did great with this one. I'm so proud of you, both for your successful acting career and for your UA-cam activist-vids. You're doing splendidly. At 57, I'm old enough to be your dad, and I surely would be proud to have you as a son. Keep up the good work. You're a pistol (and a hoot)! Big Texas-size ((HUG)) from Fort Worth... ;-)
Great video, Jacklyn. Err....I mean Theoretical BS!!! You'd think by now I would be able to tell the difference between genuine talent & substance versus vacuous mimicry. But alas, I still have that cognitive blind spot to deal with! :-)
+LetReasonPrevail1 And TB here is arguing the same thing, largely in the same was as TYT. And they've been reporting on the Kim Davis story since it began. So anything that applies to Jacklyn, applies to TB here. (not that there is anything wrong with regurgitating the same argument against this hateful woman and her vile ilk.) Just don't be calling bullshit on her, when the guy who basically did the same thing, intentionally or not.
+glukolover "Just don't be calling bullshit on her, when the guy who basically did the same thing, intentionally or not." I'm SURE you understand burden of proof, so you're going to now HAVE to demonstrate it, provide a link, something that confirms what you've suggested, because expressing similar ideas and plagiarism are two very importantly different accusations.
alphaenemy She admitted it. Case closed. Sorry your fan-boy feelings are hurt. But her unoriginal content has been exposed for what it is, namely, a straight-up intellectual copycat of others. And by the way, the "Well someone else did it too!" defense has always (and continues to be) a complete bullshit copout, sorry-ass excuse. The stupid, it hurts...
LetReasonPrevail1 I don't think you meant to address me. I was quoting the other guy, glukolover, to respond, insisting that he put up evidence that TB copied The Young Turks. Well said, though.
As a gay man I have to say this is the best video that I've seen on this topic. Thank you very much for your support. Also I believe I'm under some obligation to comment on how cute you are.
I was just today thinking of leaving a post to one of your videos saying that I would join your Patreon if you were to make one, if it would encourage you to make videos more often.
Great to see you back. Hope this isn't an isolated event, your well articulated ideas are very much worth sharing. And of course, you're spot on about this whole Kim Davis debacle. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski could have, once Huckster began to trot out that it's different with straight vs gay couples, switched the example to something else, perhaps a Muslim refusing to give a woman a driver's license. It felt like they were given free reign but only to a certain extent. Do the producers worry that if they're too hard on their guests, the guest won't return? Wouldn't Huckabee need them as much - if not a tad more - as they need him? Are there not enough wild-brained politicians they can call in his stead? His options for national camera face time is much smaller than theirs is to nutty politicians. Anyway, please don't stay away so long. We need all the well-spoken sane people we can get.
+Shangori I can't tell if that was sarcasm. In the off chance that it wasn't I have to point out that PewDiePie makes about $7 million a year just posting youtube videos.
Joshua Dunbar That's misinformation. He has sponsors and deals which make him much more money than his actual videos. UA-camrs typically don't make much and only a few lucky sellouts get to strike deals.
+westwood500 _"...a few lucky sellouts..."_ So, some You Tubers managed to find a way to make a living doing what they want to do (entertain others on You Tube) and that makes them sellouts? I want to be a sellout. I want sponsors and to make deals to support me as I make comments on You Tube videos in my spare time.
Scott, so glad you have made a recent video. I know so many people have missed you. I really admire your work, and your contributions to making this a better world. I know its not easy. I have watched many of your videos, and your treatise on morality is my favorite. Your insights are inspiring, and having not seen new videos from you in some time, this was a wonderfully delightful surprise! Please keep up the good work! There will always be detractors, but we know truth and common sense prevails in time. I was so happy to log in to You Tube and see you there! Best wishes.
![Write Your Life And Become A Better Storyteller - Mark W Travis [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
If she doesn't want her signature to be on gay marriage licenses, she might want to get a job that doesn't involve signing gay marriage licenses. A muslim who doesn't want to sell alcohol probably shouldn't get a job at a liquor store. If she goes by god's authority, she doesn't get to have government authority. It's pretty simple, really.
She needs to get a job at Chick-fil-A
+Suspiria10, or at Hobby Lobby.
+Turandot29 I agree or Westboro Baptist church
+GeneticJulia
Too much common sense in one comment! That sort of logic could blow that Kim Davis' mind. I have to say, common sense is one of the most important types of critical thinking lacking in today's society. It drives me nuts!
BTW, brilliant comment, wish there were more people like you out there.
It's ok for her to not have her signature on marriage licences. If she was absent for whatever reason, then the county executive judge can issue them and they will carry a generic country clerk stamp. She asked for her signature to be removed in the court room and the judge did so. She or her lawyers realized that the martyrdom journey had come to an end so they had to move the goalposts and she freaked out at the solution she requested being granted. She said that generic stamp referred to her so it was actually not a solution.
Eventually the legislature came back into session and made some changes for her but by that time her freak out had stopped and she said it wasn't necessary.
But please, someone primary her in 2018 or run against her or her son. It's a pretty high paying job.
*_"what's being denied, is privilege"_*
there it is, in a nutshell.
+gothatfunk There were a couple of great nutshells in the final 90 seconds or so.
+NonStampCollector aw...I miss our UA-cam community you guys...
+gothatfunk Word salad. Thank you for being brief
+gothatfunk Well, in a world of "rights", adults are allowed to believe certain things, while there is no psychologically adjusting being done.
I'm a Muslim, therefore I won't issue a business license to restaurants and grocery stores if they plan to sell pork products.
I'm a Mormon, therefore I won't issue a liquor or tobacco license to bars or gas stations because those products are against my faith
I'm a Hindu, therefore I won't issue a gun license or allow a military recruitment station to be set up because my religion is largely founded upon pacifism.
I'm Amish. I won't allow your building permit because you plan to put plumbing and electricity in your house.
I wonder if Mike Huckabee would stand up just as hard, tall, and proud for those positions.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Of course he wouldn't. There's not as much money in them.
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Right? I'm a Nihilist, therefore I won't employ any religious people to do any job that can or may issue anything to anyone. Welcome to the unemployment line, where my nihilist brethren will promptly tell you to piss off because they won't be issuing you assistance.
And this doesn't even exclude the fact that religious views can be easily exploitive; a person can make up a religion to pursue an agenda if we lived in this kind of society.
bizzee1 so any Abrahamic faith lol
+RyanReacts Newfrickinshow Sounds metal as fuck, so that's alright :)
Great points, eloquently stated. I hope this isn't the last we see from you for too long.
Atheists rule out a creator... But yet they put unproven eternal vacuums and multiverses in its place! Hilarious! Atheists believe in magic, without the magician!!
4 years later....
@@5tonyvvvv I realize your comment is over 2 years old, but still... what in the hell are you talking about???
@@fairwarning007 They're saying that atheists believe in things we can't understand just like theists do. I don't think they know that no one actually claims that infinite space and multiverse theory are fact.
Basically "Takes one to know one"
NonStamCollector What stopped you creating content? You were among six or so people who played significant roles in my deconversion.
"The right of a man to swing his fist ends where another man's nose begins."-Ben Franklin
Learned that in high school. You think more people would know that but I guess not.
HE LIVES
Let us rejoice!
+King Crocoduck Risen from the dead?
+aido92 like jesus, yes.
+sina chiniforoush Jesus isn't real
+Suspiria10 He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!
You have a right to practice your religion, but you have no right to practice it on me.
Man, so good to see a video from you. You're one of the people among TJ that helped me convert out of religion, always love your content and how you can voice stuff so flawlessly
+Livenderrr He wasn't defending violent behavior from minority groups he just said there are factors to why anyone would act violent also TJ lost some weight.
***** Again how is he a SJW when not only he makes fun of them but actually use factors when people show statistics. It seems like SJW is the ASJW word for racist.
+Livenderrr ah, spotted the AIU fanboy. Riddle me this, because TJ asked it before and no one had a good come back:
When faced with the fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men, how would you react if someone said: "Men being treated unfairly by the law? Oh, cry me a river, men just need to stop committing crimes."
***** Also the war on drugs help
nRXpAa8E6UML "You absolutely cannot treat someone who belongs to a certain group differently, just because that group of people statistically commits more crimes."
No one has ever fucking said this. The regressive narrative is "don't call out black people for their insanely high level of violent crime rates because some cops are racist and the system treats them unfairly" which boils down to "we should all treat black people differently because black people are treated differently."
Attaching news clips to your video is not a violation of copyright. News shops do it all the time under fair use. However, it's a violation of "UA-cam law". In "UA-cam law" you get burned for any attachment that their crawlers detect *could* be a violation.
+thought2007 Totally agree! UA-cam Content ID sucks for the video producer and is slanted to prevent THEM (UA-cam) from getting sued - at the cost of the producer. Fair Use? Ha ha ha ha ha! they never heard of it!
What is ironic is how UNEVENLY the "UA-cam law" is applied! (In a way, this is a good thing or UA-cam would be a wasteland of "kitten in a cup" videos - the only thing that they'd ever allow) Content ID is such a BAD system, There are SO many videos that violate the "UA-cam law" and get away with it, while others get creamed within 30 seconds of a video posting.
Example of how bad this gets, SONY got a DISNEY UA-cam channel closed down for violating their copyright. Uh ... SONY OWNS freakin Disney!
So SONY managed to SHUT THEMSELVES DOWN on UA-cam! Way to go SONY! Protect yourselves right into oblivion!
You're back! Every time I see you on my mother's TV I remember how much I miss your material.
+EdwardHowton He's on TV?
Fluffy Ribbit Yeah! The Bold and the Beautiful.
+Fluffy Ribbit Only on his mother's TV.
Yes. Scott Clifton is an actor.
"Mother's TV"
Allowing "sincerely held religious beliefs" to supercede civil liberties is tantamount to throwing out the Bill of Rights and becoming a Theocracy...full stop.
Practicing religious freedom does not mean you can use it to take away other people's rights.
Vlavitir glutginskiya bushwa. She demanded to be paid for not doing her job, all while breaking one of the laws her own beliefs holds in the Top 10. Also violating that whole "judge ye not" thing her savior talked about. And for the record, you are free to practice your religion. I'm free to not practice it. And you are not free to force me to abide by your religion, end of discussion.
Go check out Jaclyn Glenns video on this..... she had 3 time the veiws but stole your exact argument, in some places, word for word......thought you should know.
+Samantha Wood Are you saying it's a coincidence, or that you suspect her of plagiarism?
+Theoretical Bullshit I wouldn't want to cause a problem, but I just found it odd that your arguments appeared in her video 3 days after yours was posted. more so than anything, I think you should take a look at her video and see what you think about it and proceed from there....I love her and her videos, but it seemed very odd and unfair if there truly was foul play here.
+Samantha Wood There are only so many things to say about this topic and any reasonable and logical person will come to these same ideas. I was more or less on the same page as Jacklyn and TB on this whole situation before watching their videos. Human are pattern-seeking animals so it only makes sense why you would see a connection.
+Theoretical Bullshit It's ABSOLUTE plagiarism. It's not the first time she has done this either. She even copied your "living under a rock" thing at the beginning. She used all of your hypothetical examples. Sometimes WORD FOR WORD. She cited the EXACT SAME MSNBC interview. She basically saw your vid and just copied it. I unsubbed and unfollowed her. She's a thief.
+Kristaps Vaivars No, BULLSHIT. She blatantly just copied him. She made ONLY the arguments he provides here using WORD FOR WORD his examples. She doesn't expand or elaborate on any of his ideas and she only uses his ideas, at times just lifting from his script. Don't give me this crap about 'only so many things can be said'--these two videos are practically identical. She's a thief.
If Kim Davis had, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling, quit her job because it was now incompatible with her religious beliefs, she would have been acting legally. Instead, she decided to act in civil disobedience, which often results in imprisonment. When someone opposes the law because they are protesting it, they should expect to go to jail.
Recently, I heard a news program discuss two Muslim truckers who were fired from their job because they refused to traffic un-kosher meats. Bringing pig meat from one location to another isn't against the Qur'an, any more than signing documents to allow a same-sex marriage is against the Bible This is the state of "religious freedom", that people now think that simply allowing others to "sin" is the same as sinning themselves.
Why doesn't Kim Davis get a job at Chick-fil-A
+Supernova Kasprzak If they won't do their job, of course they're gonna be fired. I hate when religious people act like there's some injustice in losing their job because of that or even the fact that they have these complaints at all. Like you said, they weren't eating it and it needs to be transported regardless of how they feel about it.
Heather
Kim Davis got to keep her job. Republicans were indignant about her going to jail, but she spent a very short period there and then went back to getting paid but not doing the work she was supposed to get paid for (because she still refuses to sign gay marriage licenses). So "of course they [should] get fired", but we can't even expect that. :(
Kim Davis eats crayons.
The brown ones.
+Peach That's only because she claims to having stopped sniffing model glue after she got saved.
And something else
+Peach & just WUT does YOUR DIET Consist of????
+Suspiria10 ... And *too* much of something else.
05:19 It's interview, not inverview.
Plus Kim has all those other verses to cherry-pick (besides her double standard for meeting the Biblical definition of adultress) about obeying the government in the NT:
Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves...."
Titus 3:1, "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed..."
1 Peter 2:13-14, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution...."
This video was a 'suggested' title, and I am SO thankful I watched it. This is, without exception, the most cogent and articulate explanation of what this whole situation is about that I have heard. Thank you for your analysis and opinion!
My god, he's real. I was beginning to think you were just a myth.
SEVEN YEARS LATER and Kim Davis is STILL fighting two cases against her in court.
She was found to have violated the constitutional rights of the gay and hetero couples to whom she refused to issue a marriage license, and she doesn't qualify for "qualified immunity," a get-out-of-penalty-free card, because she knew she was violating the couples' constitutional rights when she did so.
Really all that's left is deciding how much money Davis has to pay, but she has the worst lawyer ever who keeps filing motions up and down the federal judiciary.
If the Law says 'thou shalt' thou hast no reason to disagree. If one is employed by the government that made a Law one is duty bound to uphold and obey that Law. There are no excuses.
At least she's not ruling your entire country and was prosecuted... Here in Iraq, those types of people are all around me and they rule the country. Be thankful guys for living in a secular world in which you can easily identify yourself as whatever you want! I'm an Atheist and it's really awful that I can't publicly identify myself as one.
You're a bad-ass. The best atheist youtuber there is. In fact, I believe your arguments against religion are the strongest and most respectful I've seen in the atheist community.
I can't wait for the next annual instalment.
Spot on as always. thx
Are you going to make videos more often?
+SuperDuper probably not :'(
+SuperDuper He makes tons of videos, don't you watch soap operas?
+SippinonMickeys true
I remember back when this was a thing, a lot of Davis' defenders said that her critics just blindly obeyed the law without thinking about whether that law is moral or not. A counter-argument which immediately sprang to mind for me, but which I never really saw anyone use is:
Isn't Kim Davis doing the same thing? She just thinks that God said being gay is a sin or whatever. She can't actually point to any harm that same-sex marriages cause. She's just going along with what she thinks God says.
I can't imagine what it would be like for a gay man working her job if he did the same thing to her:
"Oh i'm sorry, I don't issue marriage licenses to a straight christian, it goes against my beliefs that men are sexy and women are icky."
If that were to happen, this wouldn't have become anything really.
I have a feeling Kim Davis would've somehow managed to make a big deal about that. But, it would've been nice to see that actually happen.
Scynthia - The Violinist I mean that as in, the gay man would have immediately been fired instantly no doubt about it.
Oh yeah definitely. Then there would've been Christians saying things like "Gays can't give out marriage licenses because-" blah blah nonsense and bible whatever.
Scynthia - The Violinist Completely agreed. Christians always find some way to make themselves look the victim.
MetaLink Yep, that's the unfortunate reality we live in my friend.
Just discovered your videos. They are like a banquet for the mind. Fluent, logical and rigorously expressed. I'm savouring the opportunity of sampling more of your backlog (just spent an hour already starting on that!). Please keep posting.
As usual, you hit the nail on the head.
I think its a lot more simple than this. I think she wants everyone to be as miserable as her, hence why she is blocking all marriages
i'm so glad you posted again! i'm a Christian but i agree 100%. i hope you can find the time to upload more. the internet needs you.
+Tina Kills i'm confused...so you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is ok? Or you're a Christian who thinks gay marriage is wrong but you recognize the separation of church and state? Or are you a Christian by name but you don't really believe in a lot of the things from the bible?
This is one of those channels that you forget you were subscribed to until a video pops up.
YOUR ALIVE!!! Please don't ever leave again, I might not be able to handle it again.
+Slizzard73 Did you see the video?
You can probably put the links in clickable annotations at the respective moments of the video. There's also this new “suggested video” feature, which standardizes UA-cam links in a white button on the top.
In short, it's a cherry picking fallacy.
My parents were one of the first interracial couples to get married in Massachusetts so I totes get it.
Scott, Scott, Scott... When people like Huckabee say that they want religious freedom, they mean that they want _Christians_ to be able to freely do whatever they want. And by Christians they mean themselves and whomever incidentally agrees with them on something.
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy)
Well no....he wants *certain* Christians to be able to freely do whatever they want. He's against those dang liberal Christians forcing their beliefs on True Christians (TM).
+Andrey Larionov (ShooterAndy) But never those _other_ christians, who aren't true scotsmen for _reasons_.
And then they passive-aggressively wonder out loud why we need a secular state. Its your your own goddamn protection, you fucking morons! Argh! It's so different christians who think you're hellbound don't get to tell YOU what to do either, you damn morons!
I dunno about you but it gets rather tiring trying to defend the rights of people obsessed with their own destruction. At some point, if someone wants to commit suicide hard enough, there's no longer any point in stopping them. But their suicide will be ours, so we have to keep at it. Fucking argh.
*****
That's what I said, yeah. Only I clarified that True Christians are those who agree with the person describing who True Christians are to you.
Up until now, I wasn't too keen on people using Davis's past marital history against her. But your twist on the argument is far more persuasive. Glad you're making videos again.
Makes me so happy to see a TB video pop up on my feed.
This is why I stay subscribed despite the long absence. Brilliant insight that is elegantly stated.
holy crap...shocked to see this popup on sub feed
I love your concatenation of circumstances which would put her in Limbo ( which, apparently doesn't exist anymore). By the way, did you notice that someone has snuck in and pinched all of your pictures from the frames? Nice to see you back and I hope to see more of your logic at work.
How have I never seen or heard of this smart, insanely beautiful man up until now? *SUBSCRIBES*
Firstly, you do not need to apologize for not uploading a video for a while. When I do see one of your videos pop up on my subscription page, I'm thrilled...but a lot of work goes into making a video, and you're an actor and are in front of a video camera for a lot of your day anyway. Also, you are not stupid. Copyright laws are stupid. Also, you would think that since so many people use clips on UA-cam, that you can, too. But I guess you first have to join some group that has lawyers to fight such takedown notices to get that special ability. I know. It's not fair. Anyway, my main point is that your videos are fantastic, and I love watching them. You are logical, compassionate, and extremely well-spoken (your language is beautiful). (Oh yeah, and I'm not even gay...) What more can I say? I just love your videos!
"Thank God for Christian persecution." Can't wait for that to be used entirely out of context.
She was put in jail once, why cant they put her back again?
+Eirik Havre We'll find out tomorrow when she goes back to work. If she doesn't do what she's supposed to, the judge said he'll gladly put her back in jail. Personally, I hope she rots in there.
She should go move to a ultra conservative country like Saudi Arabia
+Eirik Havre Forever this time
+Eirik Havre
*why cant they put her back again?*
The prisoners complained.
+Eirik Havre , She's too fat to fit!! (rim shot)
I feel I should post something relating to the content of your video, as opposed to my reaction of your reappearance. This is why I subscribed to this channel! You encapsulate everything that is swirling around in my head in such a coherent, streamlined way. Welcome back. Please don't take another 5 years.
Kim Davis's claim of religious persecution is entirely disingenuous. It's not about her religious freedom, but rather her desire to obstruct others' civil rights, and to show her contempt for homosexuals.
I missed you so much
I'm like 11/10 happy that you're back on UA-cam, however briefly. You're always just the right balance of eloquent and snide in the way you present your arguments, carry on good sir!
This is what brings you back? There were so many! Still, welcome back, see you in a year? Lol
I just enjoy looking at you.
Theoretical Bullshit doesn't always make videos, but when he does, they're eloquent as fuck.
So glad I've stayed subbed.
Glad to see you back and Thank you for this great video! ^_^
Hope you don't disappear for too long again, because we miss you! hehe
"Did you watch Scott Clifton's thing on Kim Davis"
"No"
"You should watch it, it's good"
"Just gimme the Clift notes....eh..eh..."
+Houston Davis Points.
Theoretical Bullshit It was all my wife, she loves puns lol
Glad to have you back! Since I'm not a resident of the Us I honestly don't know a lot about what's going on, so this has been eye opening in more than one way.
So how 'bout that Jaclyn Glenn?
An absolutely logical and cogent argument worthy of presentation before the Supreme Court.
I have read through the original court decision, and even the precedent decisions leading up to it. I've also read the available documentation in the contempt decision (and remain bewildered as to why there haven't been sixty-plus similar cases and decisions); but, acknowledging one person can't catch everything and I undoubtedly have missed several, thus is an argument I have not seen and is an exemplary basis for a closing argument and summation, and a shame that numerous peoples have not been beaten around the head and shoulders with it as punishment for their arrogant hypocrisy!
An extremely good job, one to be proud of, and I'm sorry I just barely became aware of it! It is one I'm going to salt away to be brought back out for appropriate use
As always, the voice of reason. Definitely one of the best videos I've seen on this subject. Just...could you come back just a little sooner next time, eh?
Very well said. It just astounds me how many people have been so quick to pat her on the head and commiserate with her about how unfair it is, how she's the victim, she's so brave for standing up for her religion, etc. She's being congratulated for being discriminatory. "You poor baby, you're not allowed to be hateful at your discretion at your government job." It's messed up man!
Who else came here from Jaclyn glenn?
WHAT YEAR IS THIS?
Welcome back! Now do we have to keep creating time-sensitive religiously-themed controversy to get you to do videos?
Because we will, if that's what it takes.
I'm at 4:24 and wanted to point out that she did essentially answer that question. She claims that part of her reason for denying licenses is so gay people will see the error of their ways, and turn to God. She says she wishes people had done something similar for her when she was committing adultery. She of course ignores the fact that she is still committing adultery in the eyes of God because her first marriage is still valid biblically.
About your video being blocked. I see TYT Network and otherz take clips from that Morning Joe episode and their videos are not being blocked.
+Overonator That's because to UA-cam's content id system, the little guy is considered to be in the wrong by default. TYT is no longer the little guy.
+Overonator
You can always just appeal the block.
+AntiCitizenX I know but UA-cam errors on the side of the flawed logic of guilty until proven innocent in cases similar to these. Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn.
+Ryan Swanson
" Prove me wrong. I love to be proven wrong. It means that I learn."
I am so going to steal that line and use it relentlessly against people who refuse to engage.
Ryan Swanson
They will try to block your clip at first, but if you appeal on the grounds of fair use, then my understanding is that the burden of proof shifts back to the original copyright owner. I've had to deal with this exact sort of thing before, and I was allowed to upload shortly after.
Came here at Jaclyn Glenn's suggestion and glad that I did: you summed that up beautifully. Got yourself a subscriber (get the impression you're not going to flooding my inbox, right? ;-0 )
+Harold Weaver Smith That's cool bro. Did Jaclyn Glenn happen to also mention she plagiarized his video thus had to take her original video down after getting caught red handed?
Show me the Bible verse from one of the Gospels where Jesus states that he does not approve same sex marriage? If no one can find a verse where Jesus states anything on this, we are faced with a serious question. If Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ, who in the heck created this hidden Christian doctrine?
+Sean Grimes Old testament, and a lot of people are not following all of jesus his words. They are mostly following Paul his words.
Jesus himself said the following. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Of course people spin this by making fulfilling the law mean actually abolishing the law. Well that is in more modern times when so many of the old testament laws cannot be followed anymore.
+Nathan Wubs Yeah, I know those verses. It just seems hypocritical of Christians to down play all of the horrific events in the old testament when they want to steer people towards Christianity, but those same Christians will almost instantly use the old testament when they want to exclude people from having certain human rights.
Sean Grimes Of course as that was instilled into them to be hypocrites. for most of them its not their own fault. Its habits that have been long ingrained in them. It mostly does grow softer every generation. With sadly the occasional revival here and there.
+Nathan Wubs I hear you. I guess a better name for Christianity would be Paulianity, or Saulianity if you're Jewish! LOL!
So good to hear your perfect logic after so many months. I hope these 780 plus comments show you how much people miss your voice. I only discovered you about 6 months ago and Scott, you have the kind of mind that really makes me wonder how a person can be so damn intelligent. We need you brother. That is if you still wish to proceed.
Wow, is it 2009 again? What is happening?
+Space Jew Hey space Jew why did you get banned from AIU?
talleyrand
Where did you hear about that? The only places I've mentioned it I've told the whole story.
He did a video titled "lost souls of the banned" and was showing all the people that were banned from his channel.
talleyrand
Huh. Well I basically mocked his pro-Israel stance and especially took issue with his stance that not being pro-Israel makes one an anti-Semite. I also mocked him using the term "anti-Semite" without seeming to understand it's meaning.
I like Israel but it is a little obnoxious that any criticism of Israel or Jewish people you are immediately labeled a anti-Semite. When you are banned you can still watch the videos but cannot comment right?
That was one of the best, most well presented arguments that I have ever heard on YT. Not only do you understand the subject matter really well, but you are able to explain it so clearly. Excellent!
i see your vampirism is still keeping you forever young
An elegant and well put argument. I enjoyed it a lot.
But there is a simpler and more fundamental argument to be made here that you touch tangentially from a number of perspectives. And these different perspectives all show the brilliance of the founding fathers in not allowing a state establishment of religion. The bottom line is that Kim Davis is acting as and for the state in her capacity as the clerk. It is not essentially her as an individual who is endorsing the application and license. If she's not personally comfortable putting a stamp on the document, then she can let a staff member do it. Yet she first asserted that wouldn't be valid, and she, as herself, wouldn't allow it. If she's not comfortable with that then she's free to resign.
A large part of the whole Christian persecution 'movement' can be resolved by the same reasoning. The so called rights they want involve recognition of and support of religious practices or principles by the state. Sure, they had it their way at least in places for a very long time. That doesn't make it right, or Constitutional. Slavery and suppression of women were legal practices too. Both were supported by religious arguments. We're slowly growing up though, and coming to realize that discrimination based on religious values is a distinction without a difference. The state has no business or basis in denying real and substantial rights to anyone absent real and substantial danger.
Made my day.
I came back to this after years, and it still thrills me. Thanks
You're alive!
I simply could not have put this better myself. I wish more people would focus on what's actually going on instead of just jumping on one side of the fence...either way. BTW. ..I know you're a busy man but we do ever so miss you here to you know :)
You're on point, Starlord.
Excellent video! Glad to see your and hear your thoughts after such a long absence.
Thumbing up before watching...
+AakeTraak Thumbing up my own comment
I am so happy to see you back, TBS - even if it is just for a short remark regarding current events.
You have not been forgotten, just missed.
What do you think about Jaclyn Glenn blatantly copying your video?
+The Moral Crusader What do you think of TB here copying the same arguments as TYT?
(who did so days previously)
glukolover My thoughts are that progressive liberals argue in one big echo chamber and rarely come up with original arguments. However, what Jaclyn did was blatant theft. She took his words, put them into her mouth and spit them back out into the camera for her sheepish UA-cam audience of halfwits to eat up. What she did is completely disgraceful and she should be shamed out of existence in terms of having a UA-cam career.
The Moral Crusader Did we even watch the same video? Besides rewording it, the arguments are still exactly the same as TYT.
Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber.
(I am sensing projection here)
There is nothing wrong with using the same argument when it's the correct one to use.
You use the right tool for the job.
Kim Davis is a vile piece of shit, I don't care who the messenger is.
glukolover **"Funny that you bring up echo chambers, when the arguments are against a woman (Kim Davis) and her ilk who are the living embodiment of an echo chamber."**
There's a difference. There's a religious doctrine binding the religious right together and they pride themselves on having a binding ideology. Progressives pride themselves on being "independent thinkers" and being different from the right when in all reality, they're exactly the same in that aspect. That's what makes them hypocrites.
Also, you guys are willing to call out Kim Davis as a "vile piece of shit" when the law suits you. But i didn't hear a PEEP from you liberals about the "rule of law" when Kate Steinly got murdered by an illegal because of San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy that violated federal law. In fact, most of you defended San Francisco.
The Moral Crusader A: I didn't do anything, I'm not even particularly aware of the Kate Steinly story. Chances are it's apples and oranges, but I would need to know the details first.
Which get's to my 2nd point.
B: Being an "independent thinker" doesn't mean you can't think the same thing, come to the same conclusions on an issue as other people.
I mean that's just plain fucking ludicrous.
So every progressive must have totally alien ideas on any give issue.
Is that really what your saying? Because no progressive would take that position, because it's fucking insane.
(Also I'm using what I understand to be the American meaning of Progressive, despite it having a lot of baggage because the political landscape in the US is volatile clusterfuck)
Being a independent thinker just means coming to your own conclusions, even if said conclusion ends up being a consensus.
It's not what you think, it's how you think.
FINALLY YOU POST ❤️
Like a fucking scalpel, as usual.
Scott, you did great with this one. I'm so proud of you, both for your successful acting career and for your UA-cam activist-vids. You're doing splendidly. At 57, I'm old enough to be your dad, and I surely would be proud to have you as a son. Keep up the good work. You're a pistol (and a hoot)! Big Texas-size ((HUG)) from Fort Worth... ;-)
YOU HAVE RETURNED
Finally, the voice of reason returns, I hope for longer than a single video.
Great video, Jacklyn. Err....I mean Theoretical BS!!! You'd think by now I would be able to tell the difference between genuine talent & substance versus vacuous mimicry. But alas, I still have that cognitive blind spot to deal with! :-)
+LetReasonPrevail1 And TB here is arguing the same thing, largely in the same was as TYT.
And they've been reporting on the Kim Davis story since it began.
So anything that applies to Jacklyn, applies to TB here.
(not that there is anything wrong with regurgitating the same argument against this hateful woman and her vile ilk.)
Just don't be calling bullshit on her, when the guy who basically did the same thing, intentionally or not.
+glukolover "Just don't be calling bullshit on her, when the guy who basically did the same thing, intentionally or not."
I'm SURE you understand burden of proof, so you're going to now HAVE to demonstrate it, provide a link, something that confirms what you've suggested, because expressing similar ideas and plagiarism are two very importantly different accusations.
alphaenemy She admitted it. Case closed. Sorry your fan-boy feelings are hurt. But her unoriginal content has been exposed for what it is, namely, a straight-up intellectual copycat of others. And by the way, the "Well someone else did it too!" defense has always (and continues to be) a complete bullshit copout, sorry-ass excuse. The stupid, it hurts...
LetReasonPrevail1 I don't think you meant to address me. I was quoting the other guy, glukolover, to respond, insisting that he put up evidence that TB copied The Young Turks. Well said, though.
Thanks for the response. Sorry for the confusion on my side. Cheers.
As a gay man I have to say this is the best video that I've seen on this topic. Thank you very much for your support. Also I believe I'm under some obligation to comment on how cute you are.
Scott Clifton 2016!
TB video? Check
Jaclyn Glenn plagiarized your video. Almost word for word too.
@8:55 Awesome beginning for a joke: "Kim Davis goes to the DMV..."
A DUCK! IT'S A DUCK!
...and the mic has been dropped.
If you disagree with what your employer does, there are two and only two options:
1. Comply
2. Resign
I was just today thinking of leaving a post to one of your videos saying that I would join your Patreon if you were to make one, if it would encourage you to make videos more often.
Great to see you back. Hope this isn't an isolated event, your well articulated ideas are very much worth sharing.
And of course, you're spot on about this whole Kim Davis debacle. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski could have, once Huckster began to trot out that it's different with straight vs gay couples, switched the example to something else, perhaps a Muslim refusing to give a woman a driver's license. It felt like they were given free reign but only to a certain extent. Do the producers worry that if they're too hard on their guests, the guest won't return?
Wouldn't Huckabee need them as much - if not a tad more - as they need him? Are there not enough wild-brained politicians they can call in his stead? His options for national camera face time is much smaller than theirs is to nutty politicians.
Anyway, please don't stay away so long. We need all the well-spoken sane people we can get.
I've had to start watching that soap opera you're in to make up for the fact that you basically left UA-cam. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?
Being a star probably takes up a lot of time. I cant blame him. its not like posting youtube videos pays the bills in any stable way
+Shangori I can't tell if that was sarcasm. In the off chance that it wasn't I have to point out that PewDiePie makes about $7 million a year just posting youtube videos.
Joshua Dunbar
So, ONE person earning a shitload means everyone should be able to? The guy works his ass off
Joshua Dunbar That's misinformation. He has sponsors and deals which make him much more money than his actual videos. UA-camrs typically don't make much and only a few lucky sellouts get to strike deals.
+westwood500 _"...a few lucky sellouts..."_
So, some You Tubers managed to find a way to make a living doing what they want to do (entertain others on You Tube) and that makes them sellouts?
I want to be a sellout. I want sponsors and to make deals to support me as I make comments on You Tube videos in my spare time.
Spot on. Kim's position doesn't pass the reciprocation test. It's a presumption of privilege.
Can you, like, not disappear again?
Scott, so glad you have made a recent video. I know so many people have missed you. I really admire your work, and your contributions to making this a better world. I know its not easy. I have watched many of your videos, and your treatise on morality is my favorite. Your insights are inspiring, and having not seen new videos from you in some time, this was a wonderfully delightful surprise! Please keep up the good work! There will always be detractors, but we know truth and common sense prevails in time. I was so happy to log in to You Tube and see you there! Best wishes.
Where did you go man. You're the best.
Probably a male model now....
Do you know if Jericomovie is still around? i used to love his videos etc..