Fun facts supreme court Videos

+Angela Chang vitamin d IS a steroid hormone.

+Vegan Gains and it can totally be legal steroids, which is like what many people take. technically birth control is a steroid lol

Yeah we all know he is on steroids just like Layne fakenatty norton who sued jason blaha for same accusations. Unfurtunally in this life steroid users are protected and admired.

Have you received you court summons letter yet? ;)

+Bonnie AnnieVegan Gains is the channel.  It starts off with pics flashing of her and Hitler and quickly goes down from there.   He calls her all sorts of names.   Discusses how her credentials are a joke that anyone can get, how she never ever wrote the book but paid someone to do it and basically said in 7 1/2 minutes that she is fucked in the head.   Oh ya and he said her book is a worthless piece of crap that only a moron would pay for.   haha

Its blocked in australia....What was the video about?? Who made the video..I will check out his other vids..

+Vegan Health FitnessI think we all might need that for Richard's videos down the track ha.

+Break the Chain Get the Hola extension for Chrome problem solved.

Nah."This content is not available on this country domain due to a defamation complaint."

+Break the ChainMan did you get that copyright blocked content crap?

Banned in Aus.

+Freelee the Banana Girl Excellent! Good luck on Monday!

+jl5dean we have a copy of it and that is what he says

+Victoria C. It's been pulled from youtube, wonder why haha. It was an interview with Creative Coffee Adelaide, a marketing podcast. I found out about it through Freelee and Durian so they've definitely heard it.

nephilium are not aliens they are the offspring of angles and humans 

ah the news such good stories about something stupid like a block party or the zoo 

I always thought after the "Dragon Dictation" app came out,that this was next..Thanks Mark you are top speed number one,like a pace car : ) Keep on pacing them your doing great.

Exactly!

lolThat's how I think about it too.Like, who gives a rats rear end?

thats soooo 20 years agonow they can do anything they want whenever they want to whomever they want, especially in the name of "national security" or they just deem something "terrorist" and kaboom.

I've played Halo 3 and Fallout: New Vegas before, and i'm sixteen. I understand why fallout is rated as m but i don't see the point for halo to be rated as M. And what is wanted say is fallout and some other games actually taught us a lot of thing about humanity unlike those games who teach you how to step on mushroom. I can see the point that teen may not be able to distinguish these game themselves, but games like fallout are actually reality of humanity. Should we rated the the society as M?

< Ignore my troll account, but I am 16 and I have been playing video games like GTA San Andreas, Vice city, Hitman, Call of Duty, pretty much any M Rated video game, since I was 8 or 9. Now, I am perfectly normal, I am an honor roll student and would never dream of going out and doing any of the stuff like I would do in GTA. The only problem here is people's moral compass, I think parents should let their children know the difference between right and wrong.

I'm 14 almost every game I have is rated m. I love gore, violence. And when I was 8 I loved to play Spartan total warrior where you cut off heads arms and other brutal things. It has not affected me in a bad way period

I played call of duty when I was a kid and it absolutely did not affect me. In fact I found out that social media has led to more violence than video games.

@mentalRCburnouts Some parents don't care what their kids play. But they probably don't really care about their kids either.

14, I don´t play games... i make them... with the intention to let people get rid of their stress on zombies and enemies ;3

I am 12 and 60% of my games are rated M. I play such like Grand Theft Auto,Call Of Duty,Mortal kombat and etc.

They care about their kids its just they taught their kids better than to take values from a video game

fallout yeah but i see kids like 6 play cod and halo just saying

good for me, ths

+Danial B. ""Many people who call themselves Christian are actually quite Jewish(or whatever applicable terminology we switch to)"funny enough i could probably make a halfway decent argument for that statement, and i don't think it would be fallacious. it all depends on what is really meant by it. Christianity started as an offshoot of Judaism and admittedly changed significantly after the separation, but it still retains some significant stuff from it's Jewish roots. The old testament is the most obvious example i could go to but there are some other (comparatively less significant) things that i could mention as well.now of course there are many, many distinct flavors of Judaism as well as Christianity, which actually makes your example pretty decent seeing as there are a gazillion different flavors of "conservative" and "liberal"as well. just like with strains of Judaism vs strains of Christianity, you get lots of overlap (Jews for Jesus is a good example of that). just like when comparing the ideas of libs verses conservatives.Basically i think we are largely in agreement on most of this. These are self identifiers that each person kind of defines on their own. If a person told me they were Jewish but believed in Christ i wouldn't tell them they weren't jewish. and i don't go around telling people that they are not conservatives either, but in both cases i would be willing to point out the fact that they are really not that different from the other side in many ways. jews for jesus would probably be like yeah, no duh. i didn't pick the ideal example probably because there is the whole religion vs ethnicity thing with the term "jewish" but whatever it illustrates my point.as for the link to the article. its' not super relevant to what the other guy was saying about churches being forced into doing gay weddings or whatever. revoking tax exemption is not the same thing as forcing a church to do a ceremony. some churches don't even do marriage ceremonies and it's not like the government is gonna force them to start.should churches have tax exemption is a totally different issue. currently they benefit from a separate set of rules from all other tax exempt non profits. the way benefit to the community is measured is kind of BS. except not kind of.they aren't supposed to make political endorsements but they do so all the time. that's against the rules (exemption can be revoked for this) but the law is almost never enforced. basically if churches want to pretend to be charities then they should have to live by mostly the same rules as other charities. when a church endorses a political candidate they should lose their free ride. when they say no we don't want to marry you two people for whatever reason then personally i think they should probably get to do that, but could be persuaded otherwise. the reason i think they should probably get to do that is due to the fact that their end of the whole marriage thing aint shit legally speaking. it's not the contractual part. it's not the part of the whole thing that has the mark of a regional power on it. it's the ceremony part of the whole thing. the celebration part of the thing. has no real importance to anyone other than the people directly involved(attendees, friends, family, etc). 

+ScreamingForClemency About the possibility of churches being forced to marry people against their views.  Just an interesting read for your other conversation.//www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/07/09/will-irs-force-gay-marriage-on-conservative-churches/Although the issue with marriage is government's involvement in it.  Given that courts overturn private marriage contracts and many marriages involve legal aspects that people don't want in their personal lives the government should bud out.

+ScreamingForClemency "The criteria for being considered a "real conservative" is not clearly defined or easy to understand."It's a label which is only self-identifiable.  You may suggest a view that someone may prefer but that didn't stop a lot of gay republicans in the 90s."If you told me that you were pro gay rights, pro-gun control, pro abortion rights, in favor of religious liberty and environmental protection and against the drug war and against pre-emptive over seas military action....then i would say you're not a conservative in the way the National republican party would likely define it."Given the number of identifiers people use to group themselves into smaller groups within a sector I would say if they say they're conservative then they are.  They might identify as "libertarian-leaning Conservative" and be insulted that you call them Liberal, especially with them voting right."are both of these fallacious?"Probably, they both seem baseless, one is just more clearly wrong than the other.  It's like me saying, for example, "Many people who call themselves Christian are actually quite Jewish(or whatever applicable terminology we switch to)""Can i accuse someone of not being a Scotsman if they have never set foot in Scotland and have no relation to anyone from Scotland ever?"Every black person ever is "African American".  I see no reason why people who are 1/whatever Scottish shouldn't identify as Scottish.  Hell, men identify as women.  Although a Nationality is much more concrete than a personal identifier, being as a nation give s you citizenship to it.

+roads55 It seems like you agree that my point "Forced association may not be exclusively Liberal, but it is a major point to the party." holds true?

+s0be2266 "you haven't proven your point."and what point was that exactly? i'm not sure what you are referencing. are you referencing when someone previously said: "the Right is fighting against is the government forcing churches to perform homosexual marriages,"To which i called bullshit and asked for evidence (which was never provided). I don't know how you managed to miss the point in that. He said something. I called bullshit and asked for evidence. It was never provided.  "you're just ignoring the concerns of one group in order to cater to another. "and what concerns am i ignoring? i asked for evidence. that's not ignoring a concern, that's part of addressing a concern."don't blind yourself to fit in with a group"uhhhhhhhhh. kayyyy....."why do gays even want to get married?"probably the same reasons as straight people mostly. ask a gay person though, i can't speak for them. "if there's a benefit to it, why is it there?"because society has decided to confer a benefit to marriage. "all I see these days is a fast marriage system and a long line for divorce."so????? is that a serious problem or something? like what are we supposed to do? end the institution of marriage because most people don't stay married their whole lives? why do you even care if people are married for a while and then stop. what's it to you?

+Danial B. "Example, I could say, "You're not a real Conservative, you're a liberal.". That's a Scotsman fallacy."Here's the problem. The criteria for being considered scottish is very easy to understand and clearly defined. The criteria for being considered a "real conservative" is not clearly defined or easy to understand.If you told me that you were pro gay rights, pro-gun control, pro abortion rights, in favor of religious liberty and environmental protection and against the drug war and against pre-emptive over seas military action....then i would say you're not a conservative in the way the National republican party would likely define it. Would you still be a "real conservative"? Maybe....some of those things are in line with old school american conservatism. Depends on who you ask.I never said that the person calling them-self a conservative is not a "real" conservative. I was trying to say that if you look at the individual issues you will find that their stances are often times quite liberal (as defined by what is currently thought of as liberal by most people).again, i could have phrased it better because by leaving out important qualifiers i made it seem more broad brush than i meant to. i think implying "all" might in fact have important bearing.compare these two statements1. all people who call themselves conservative are actually quite liberal on the issues.2. many people who call themselves conservative are actually quite liberal on the issues.are both of these fallacious? again, bear in mind how these words (liberal and conservative) are defined compared to that of the word "Scotsman". Can i accuse someone of not being a Scotsman if they have never set foot in Scotland and have no relation to anyone from Scotland ever? along that same line can i accuse someone of not being a conservative if their opinions are in opposition to what is generally considered to be a requirement for calling oneself a conservative? is it fallacious to tell someone that they are not a pedestrian because they are laying in bed and lost both their legs in a car wreck? "You're not a real Conservative, you're a liberal. That's a Scotsman fallacy."We are talking about labels that people apply to themselves and some define them differently. If you told me you were a conservative who wanted to burn every tree and oil well on the planet for no reason, i would tell you that you were not a real conservative (though i wouldn't label you a liberal either). i don't think that would be a fallacious argument to make. "real conservative" is defined by the individual or society. Scotsman is defined by a regional world government. There is a big difference.

 but these points you are making are more representative of the(probably many) Idiots that support liberal united, which as im sure your aware are prevalent in all cultures/political parties/countries/continents/groups, I also think that the majority of people who align themselves politically are very uninformed about politics as a whole and and don't even know the policies of the party they support(a lot of the time people just blindly support one party because there parents did, or other things like that). in a time when people are so diverse statements like "average liberal" can be a bit naive(no offense).. you, or maybe more accurately the uninformed public are painting them all with the same brush which is part of the problem facing politics today.like I said it's more of a my team vs yours scenario where politicians and supporters are just shitting on each other( prime minister's questions in the uk is a amazingly infuriating example of this)and corruption and unethical laws/practices/companies are running riot, which is why partly why political progress seems to come about so slowly If we can get past these fickle and childish labels(or even the illogical idea's in them) we might be able to vastly improve this planet In my opinion. 

+roads55 "From the Democratic Strategist – the core principles, ideals and beliefs identified in presidential quotes:We are a national community based on a commitment to social justice. (Franklin Roosevelt)"If I were to select a highly Liberal location, like NYC, we can see the forced association at the barrel of a gun.//www.copblock.org/150167/150167/Using the wrong pronoun can net you a $250,000 fine because liberals believe in equality and not freedom. Equality demands a loss of freedom and freedom demands a loss of equality.So yeah, this is why people don't like Liberals. Don't say things that trigger me (high liberal concentration places like colleges), don't sell things with a Confederate flag, don't refuse someone because of skin color or gender, but feel free to discriminate based on intelligence or political beliefs.

that seems rather vague and generalised view of liberals and seems more in line with human beings in general not some arbitrary definition of what constitutes an "average liberal" 

+roads55 Forced association may not be exclusively Liberal, but it is a major point to the party. The average liberal doesn't want you to not associate with certain people for a number of arbitrary reasons and wants to force you to associate with others for arbitrary reasons. This is a normal, common view amongst those who label themselves Liberal.It's still immoral.

+roads55 You said you failed to understand why people criticize liberals "by definition of the word". I explained to you it's definition and origin to which you are now distancing yourself from. The Right is pro-king and Left anti-king. The Right wants no change, the Left wants much change.

the term liberal may of originated from that but that was hundreds of years ago this is 2015. I never limited myself to one of these dumb political labels people feel the need to attach themselves too. the amount of people that immediately disregard you because of your particular label is ridiculous, and limits the interaction and advancement of the global community. it's like sports teams fans. nor did i say you can't talk to your friends(not sure where you got that from). I merely meant that being open minded can be a great thing and politicians are the first to attack a fellow politician for changing their mind on something regardless of the validity and merit of their pov, just to get the upper hand in some pissing match. It's pantomime at it's worst it's illogical and an outdated concept that will soon disappear as technology will erase a lot of the BS that get's clogged up in the completely inefficient political system. also what you said  at the end isn't synonymous with only liberals. 

+roads55 Liberals come from those who disagreed with the king. Being pro-change is not an innately moral stance. I don't need some liberal telling me I can't associate only with those I want to or trying to legalize inclusion by adding jail terms to behavior they personally don't condone.

+Curia Regis literally their first episode ever was one saying homosexuality is fine and conservatives are idiots for being against it. I fail to see how a season focused on hating liberals is their "most liberal" season. It seems like you're just throwing shit around and setting if it sticks while lacking any evidence.

+Curia Regis I don't get why is being liberal always criticized by other political ideologies, by definition of the word i fail to understand why people critique others for being open to new ideas, and thinking people should be equal....doesn&#39;t every rational person believe these are good things?

+Danial B. Nah, I'm a huge Southpark fan. In fact, I expected the show to go to shit years ago, and in spite of a few missteps they have maintained their quality. Even this season was funny. I'm talking about the underlying politics and social commentary of the show. And yes, this season was actually the worst in that regard. I'm a classical liberal/libertarian with some conservative leanings, so I've greatly appreciated Southparks perspective over the years. Even if they go entirely off the rails I will still be happy that Southpark was so good for so many years.

+ScreamingForClemency you haven't proven your point. you're just ignoring the concerns of one group in order to cater to another. don't blind yourself to fit in with a group, you're too smart to let it go to waste. why do gays even want to get married? if there's a benefit to it, why is it there? all I see these days is a fast marriage system and a long line for divorce.

+Book Forge " What the Right is fighting against is the government forcing churches to perform homosexual marriages,"bullshit. show me one instance of the federal government trying to do that.i was about to waste my time refuting your other points but when i got that sentence right there i knew you were either a troll or a retard. 

+ScreamingForClemency The Right, including the GOP, is anti-authoritarian. The problem today is Leftists have infiltrated the GOP--RINOs. The Left has adopted method of seeing its own flaws and then pointing at the Right and claiming those flaws belong to the Right. People who don't understand Left vs Right (most people) believe this. As for homo rights, they have all the rights under the Constitution of anyone else, but the RINOs can't simply state this. Marriage is not a right, and is not something the government should be involved in at all--and weren't involved in until relatively recently in the history of marriage. What the Right is fighting against is the government forcing churches to perform homosexual marriages, which IS a violation of rights. As for further Right than Libertarians, that would be Anarchists.

+Curia Regis Where? There are 19 years of South Park and you're saying the season with a giant liberal insulting story arc is the most mainstream liberal season? Are you just upset they fucked Trump to death? Is that it? You just live Trump?

+Danial B. So you're saying that declaring year 19 of SP where they're specifically targeting liberals this year on insults, vs other seasons where they have insulted both evenly or Republicans more, is now, "The most Reactionary, American-style mainstream liberal SP has been?" I don't even think that stretch can qualify as hyperbole.

+ScreamingForClemency You don't need to say "all" to use a Scotsman. Example, I could say, "You're not a real Conservative, you're a liberal.". That's a Scotsman fallacy.

+Danial B. Just don't have the energy to do a checklist of the bullshit Southpark was slinging this season. Yeah, I love the addition of PC principal and whole foods and gentrification and safe spaces and all that, but they greatly pulled their punches and even littered the shows with mainstream, leftist drivel. Unfortunately. 

+Danial B."There must be no true Scotsman living in America, then."at no point did i say ALL people (or anything to that effect). therefore my previous statement does not qualify as a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. i could have been more clear by saying "a lot of people who call themselves conservative are actually quite liberal on the issues" i didn't phrase it that way for whatever reason but i also never said "all conservatives are really liberals". so you are wrong.nice try tho.

+Danial B. What he is saying makes sense, he's not throwing "random political terms" around at all. You are just salty

+Curia Regis Are you just picking random political terms and throwing them together with no real thought?

+ScreamingForClemency There must be no true Scotsman living in America, then.

+Curia Regis liberal kind of IS the mainstream in america. even people who call themselves conservative are actually quite liberal when you ask them about the nitty gritty of the issues.

+Caleb Wheeler Nah, this season has been their most mainstream, reactionary American-style liberal than any other. Still pretty funny, though.

+Curia Regis "World War Zimmerman" had potential, but it really pissed me off in the end with its misrepresentation of "stand your ground". Still, 99.99999% of the time, Trey and Matt get it right.

+Curia Regis they are basically libertarians and have been for a very long time. if you're looking for something more right wing then you're barking up the wrong tree. they are anti-drug war (which often makes mainstream republicans shit themselves). they are pro gay rights (again, causing republicans to shit themselves). and they are fairly anti-authoritarian ( in stark contrast to the republican party at this time).really what it boils down to is the fact that mainstream conservatism has become decidedly anti-liberty. so when a libertarian stands up and says his peace, it contrasts starkly with what the mainstream "conservatives" have to say. and since these "conservatives" are considered to be on the right, then therefore libertarians must be on the left.it's not their social commentary that is confused, it's the labels that people use to describe themselves which are confused. they are pretty much about as leftist as they've always been. if you call them mainstream lefty then you are basically accusing the libertarian movement of the same thing. ask a libertarian sometime if they consider themselves mainstream leftist. most probably do not.

+Curia Regis You should really watch the latest season. The whole season is devoted to critiquing PC culture. It was pretty funny.

I don't think you have seen SouthPark lately!

So you haven't seen season 19?

So you haven't seen season 19?