Hasselbeck - The Rights Of Minorities Should Be Voted On

[JackBeck]

Run time: 03:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GgIgoMdzYg   Posted on YouTube: December 16, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 17, 2008 By DU Member: JackBeck Views on DU: 3545

 
I just caught Melissa on The View from earlier today. Things got pretty intense during this discussion on marriage equality, especially after Elizabeth promoted the idea that the rights of minorities should be decided by the vote of the people. It would have been more interesting if the producers didn't shut down the discussion. But like most of the media in this country, we gotta keep the majority in that warm, fuzzy place, while millions of their fellow Americans face each day as less than equal.

[sakabatou]

1. GAH!

*facepalm*

[JackBeck]

10. My favorite comment from Elizabeth:

(paraphrasing) "We have made mistakes in the past, though."

I wanted to say right back: "Do you consider this vote one of them???" I'm sure I already know what her answer would be.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Why do they allow dumbf*cks like Hasselback a public forum to

spew her hate and ignorance...?

[closeupready]

4. I know. I couldn't actually watch the whole clip, because she makes me sick.

n/t

[iconicgnom]

11. Oh c'mon. You didn't see her legs?

She pushes her legs and Barbie looks to the limit, and I have to give her credit, she's a babe.

She's not much for ideas, tho'. Too bad.

[Lost-in-FL]

3. WHAAAAA?

OMFG!!! :wow:

[bulloney]

7. Women, too Ms. Hasslebeck?

Should we lump women in the category of people that get rights when the men in power feel the issue is worthy of a vote of the people?

[hendo]

12. Actually

according to the last census men were the minority.

[Initech]

5. Why do people take "The View" seriously?

It's a fucking OPINION show. It's in no way meant to be a political forum. It's like the "O'Reilly Factor" or Ann Coulter's books. Nobody takes them seriously. Yet the View somehow is taken like it's a serious news show. It isn't.

:rant:

[Sydnie]

8. I haven't watched the clip yet but I had to respond to your post

WE (the people on DU) don't take it seriously as a news source BUT, having said that, there are many people (mostly women) who follow these shows on a daily basis, often don't get enough other "news" to develop an opinion on their own so they take what their favorite celebrities, that speak to "them" everyday, as gospel.

That is why things said on shows like this should not be dismissed as totally irrelevant.

[hendo]

14. The View

is no more of a news show than Maury or Jerry Springer. It is day time TV. Should we we all complain about the political opinions expressed on Jerry Springer now?

Why do so many people here only want free speech if it agrees with them. Come on, we are liberal, we support free speech no matter who is spouting whatever idiocy they are spouting. And yes, idiocy comes from both liberals and conservatives.

[emilyg]

17. Hear. Hear.

[hendo]

21. the point when we take away her right

to say what she wants to is the point at which we have lost our own.

[emilyg]

32. Exactly.

[iconicgnom]

16. I used to detest Whoopie, for some reason, but I've gotten to kinda like her, on The View.

I don't watch The View, because I don't watch TV ;) , but I always enjoy the clips posted to DU.

[Initech]

27. That is true to a certain extent.

I mean I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report on a regular basis. Sure, they report the news in a way that is better than say, CNN or Faux Noise, but they're just comedy shows. They're not meant to stir up controversy. One thing that really pisses me off about modern society is people who do things simply to be controversial - and that includes everything from pundits like Hasselbeck to musicians like Katy Perry.

[nosillies]

13. Do you really think that people don't take O'Reilly and Coulter and other such shows seriously?

Are you that out of touch? Whether you like it or not, plenty of people watch opinion shows and take them dead seriously.

Sure, The View is about opinions. But facts, clarifications, corrections and informative pieces are also presented on this show. I dare say there are a lot of women who are more informed citizens today than they were before they started watching The View. I personally know two women who voted for Obama because of what they learned during the show's ongoing debates and discussions pre-election.

The only drawback is that people often get cut off or commercials interrupt juicy discussions or the hosts are mistaken about something or people temper their comments. Unfortunately, them's the breaks with time-constrained, non-cable, ratings-driven television shows.

Just because opinion shows aren't your choice doesn't make them non-serious. As far as I know, there isn't a highfalutin', edumacated litmus test for open dialogue and debate on television shows. Thank God.

[Initech]

30. No and here is why.

The reason I said that is because nobody takes Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al seriously. And the thing is that the people who do take them seriously are generally pegged off as morons, especially here. The reason why pundits like O'Reilly and so on ARE taken seriously is that dissenting opinions are never given a forum on those shows. Look at Hannity and Colmes - Colmes was never given an opportunity to speak and now that he's actually leaving the show he's giving those dipshits a piece of his mind. O'Reilly regularly cuts the microphones of people who do not agree with him, same with Hannity, same with Cavuto, same with every pundit on Faux Noise. It's just a matter of perspective. I know that shows like the View are mainly opinion forums, and that they are just that.

[Fridays Child]

6. You know, that could backfire on her, one day.

Isn't the Hispanic population in this country projected to exceed the Caucasian population by the next census?

[Jarody]

9. The Constitution for the state of California .

Right now marriage is a union of three bodies. You,your partner,and the government. Taking marriage completely out of the hands of the government should be the first step everyone focuses on. Not adding more government by extending the laws which limit freedom.

[hendo]

15. Unfortunately

individual rights regarding this issue will have to be added into the state constitutions. The answer here is more government involvement, not less.

[Jarody]

19. Rights

Are not things that are given to individuals by governments. The rights we have right now were earned by the people that have fought the oppressive control of government (both ours and others) in part for the purpose of freedom. By allowing a government to "give" rights you legitimatize the idea that they have the authority to withhold them. The cure here is less government. Allow individuals to recognize relationships how they want to. Make marriage more then a legally binding document. Let marriage become solely about love and life commitment again,that is,if that is what the individuals want.

[hendo]

20. less government? small government?

rights do not exist unless the government recognizes that they do. Sure you can go on and on about human rights, and natural rights, but honestly in the end, if your government doesn't recognize those rights the effectively do not exist. Our rights are protected, and recognized by the government.

If we were really in the fascist regime that some people here claim we are, we would be a helluva lot worse off than we are now. We are lucky to live in a country that recognizes individual rights. We just aren't quite there yet on individual rights for everyone. We will get there though.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hendo]

25. are you enlisting for a militia tonight?

When do we get our rifles, so that we can overthrow the evil government?

The economy is tanking because of the government was too involved? really? Where have you been?

is this tinfoil hat night on DU or something? I must have missed the memo.

[Jarody]

29. Such silly questions.

1. You bring you own rifles
2. Yes
3. Yes really.
4. Actually studying information rather then trusting what the media tells me.
5. No, thats Thursday, check your inbox. And its aluminum foil,sheesh.

[tclambert]

34. Sounds like you're a "Might Makes Right" Libertarian.

Unfortunately, that is the kind of government we've had for the last eight years. Under your system, what keeps the strong from abusing the weak? And you skipped over a couple of important thoughts in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Good government is better than bad government. No government at all is a very bad form of government. It always, ALWAYS, devolves into tyranny, as ambitious bullies step into the power vacuum and start pushing everybody else around, eventually leading to the worst, most ruthless bully taking over. Good government isn't easy. But it's worth it.

[Jarody]

39. I take the position on no government

Because politics is compromise.The furthest away from my goals I want to move to is a less government position.

[MaineDem]

35. Where has he been?

Running for office as a Republican. A short google search showed this:

The online newsletter of the Christian Civic League, who are themselves a great source of amusement, reports that a 24 year-old Republican activist named Jarody (he legally removed his last name), who had been chosen by the GOP city committee as the Republican nominee for state house district 57, is removing himself from the ballot.

Jarody was a frequent commenter on As Maine Goes and, like many on the conservative site, appears to be a few fries short of a happy meal. A quick search of his posting history shows some interesting interactions, including his belief that the state of Israel should be eliminated and his thoughts about being detained by police for carrying a loaded gun around a Hannaford parking lot a few weeks ago.

Sadly for those of us who look to local politics for our entertainment, the state GOP felt that he was a bit too colorful for the party, and House Leader Josh Tardy and Chairman Mark Ellis asked him to sit out the election or face disowning by the party.

http://www.mainepolitics.net/category/topics/jarody

[mr1956]

37. Good find

[Jarody]

38. =D

My membership to As Maine Goes was revoked for reasons not told to me.

[hendo]

41. awesome

Excellent find.

We do need more humerous politicians on both sides of the aisle though. With Bush leaving who are we going to laugh at :( It is going to be a sad 4 years without a constant joke in the whitehouse :(

[JackBeck]

23. Who would you task with implementing the rights enumerated in the Constitution?

That is, if you believe that a document holds the power to guarantee individual rights.

If you believe that the Constitution is more than just a "goddamn piece of paper", how would you go about making sure that every citizen abides by the rights written in that document?

[Jarody]

26. .The Constitution does not give rights to the individual.

The rights mentioned in the Constitution and the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are rights acknowledged as natural rights.

Obviously a document, a mere piece of paper, can not take rights away, but the government empowered by such a constitution can, and will. The evidence that they will exists in the government empowered to govern by the Constitution of the United States but expressly forbidden to abrogate or derogate the rights of individuals, yet do regularly. If a government that is constitutionally prohibited from disregarding rights does so, so willingly, then imagine what a government free to disregards will do.

[JackBeck]

31. You still haven't answered the question.

So let's try again...

Which theory of organization would you prefer to utilize to administer and implement the rules established in the United States Constitution?

[Jarody]

40. The people

Should naturally rise up to keep their government from violating the natural rights of the individual.

[shellgame26]

18. the only thing worse than a stupid person

is an arrogant stupid person. Hasselbeck and Bush fall neatly into this category.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. OK. Let's vote on the rights of dumb blonds.

!!

[tclambert]

36. Damn, that's just what I was gonna say.

[Political Tiger]

28. Lizzybeth needs to be reminded

that in this country, Republicans are a minority!

[shotten99]

33. Why does anyone pay any attention to her?

I think my dog has a higher IQ that Hasselbeck.