Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[skye]

 

[dblack]

Much like the original Bill of Rights, an 'Internet Bill of Rights' will result in less rights, not more - because authoritarians will inevitably interpret such a list of rights as the ONLY rights government must honor.

 

[evenflow1969]

Obama just told them to crack down on non-government approved news and stories. I guess they listened

Obama is not president and has never said any thing about shutting any body up. You are talking about our current pres. The republicans are currently in power if they do not fix the situation it is their fault. Do you think this will be allowed long? Hope fully the government will act! I am going to be optomistic an say they will act. I will also say it will not be fixed over night, that is not how democracy works. No one top blame but you tube yet. If no moves for correction then we can start blaming the government. Not a black eye on left or right yet. Lets hope it remains that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dblack]

I always get a kick out of threads that highlight the hypocrisy of partisan tools. In this thread, we have liberals speaking up for the freedom of private businesses to discriminate, and conservatives complaining about it. In another thread they'll swap sides. So much for principle.

I always get a kick out of posts where the poster demonstrates his deliberate ignorance. Like yours.

I hear ya. And right back at ya'.

Private business's absolutely have the right to discriminate- as long as they follow the law.

Of course. It's all about respect for the law. Certainly not a personal desire to use government to force other people to live the way you want. Nothing like that.

Flip-flop much?

 

[skye]

Much like the original Bill of Rights, an 'Internet Bill of Rights' will result in less rights, not more - because authoritarians will inevitably interpret such a list of rights as the ONLY rights government must honor.

I don't agree.

 

[Syriusly]

I always get a kick out of threads that highlight the hypocrisy of partisan tools. In this thread, we have liberals speaking up for the freedom of private businesses to discriminate, and conservatives complaining about it. In another thread they'll swap sides. So much for principle.

I always get a kick out of posts where the poster demonstrates his deliberate ignorance. Like yours.

I hear ya. And right back at ya'.

Private business's absolutely have the right to discriminate- as long as they follow the law.

Of course. It's all about respect for the law. Certainly not a personal desire to use government to force other people to live the way you want. Nothing like that.

Flip-flop much?

Feel free to point out where I have flip flopped once.

I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they want so long as they don't break the law.

How about you?

 

[dblack]

I always get a kick out of threads that highlight the hypocrisy of partisan tools. In this thread, we have liberals speaking up for the freedom of private businesses to discriminate, and conservatives complaining about it. In another thread they'll swap sides. So much for principle.

I always get a kick out of posts where the poster demonstrates his deliberate ignorance. Like yours.

I hear ya. And right back at ya'.

Private business's absolutely have the right to discriminate- as long as they follow the law.

Of course. It's all about respect for the law. Certainly not a personal desire to use government to force other people to live the way you want. Nothing like that.

Flip-flop much?

Feel free to point out where I have flip flopped once.

Here you're defending the right of private businesses to discriminate, and happy stomp all over it when suits your personal values. aka "Bake the Cake!"

I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they want so long as they don't break the law.

How about you?

I believe that, much of the time, the law is full of shit and needs to be changed.

 

[Syriusly]

I always get a kick out of threads that highlight the hypocrisy of partisan tools. In this thread, we have liberals speaking up for the freedom of private businesses to discriminate, and conservatives complaining about it. In another thread they'll swap sides. So much for principle.

I always get a kick out of posts where the poster demonstrates his deliberate ignorance. Like yours.

I hear ya. And right back at ya'.

Private business's absolutely have the right to discriminate- as long as they follow the law.

Of course. It's all about respect for the law. Certainly not a personal desire to use government to force other people to live the way you want. Nothing like that.

Flip-flop much?

Feel free to point out where I have flip flopped once.

Here you're defending the right of private businesses to discriminate, and happy stomp all over it when suits your personal values. aka "Bake the Cake!"

I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they want so long as they don't break the law.

How about you?

I believe that, much of the time, the law is full of shit and needs to be changed.

Then change the law.

Clearly you are unhappy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that businesses can't discriminate against blacks and Jews and others.

Meanwhile- I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they will as long as they follow the law.

 

[dblack]

Much like the original Bill of Rights, an 'Internet Bill of Rights' will result in less rights, not more - because authoritarians will inevitably interpret such a list of rights as the ONLY rights government must honor.

I don't agree.

Well, that's certainly the way things have worked out with the Bill of Rights. Despite the Ninth Amendment, most people don't think we have any rights unless they're specifically called out in the Constitution. I fear that we'll go down the same path with an 'Internet Bill of Rights', largely because people today are so utterly ignorant on the topic of rights in the first place.

An "Internet Bill of Rights", much like "Net Neutrality", isn't a movement to protect freedom on the internet. It's the opposite.

 

[dblack]

Meanwhile- I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they will as long as they follow the law.

And if the law changed? I mean, that can happen, right? If the conservatives pass a law clamping down on internet sites that criticize them, you still be all excited about everyone following the law, right? If they turned the tables and outlawed gay marriage again, you'd still be on here advocating for the law, eh?

That's what I mean by hypocrisy. For all your posturing, your claimed respect for the law, you really only support overbearing government when it's on your side.

 

[dblack]

Clearly you are unhappy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that businesses can't discriminate against blacks and Jews and others.

I am - and I'm betting you don't get why. I'll bet you're clinging to a stereotype of me as a reactionary bigot or something. But this very thread lays out my argument. Laws like the Civil Rights Act, the 'protected classes' and 'public accommodations' etc, don't bother me because they prevent people from discriminating against blacks, Jews or gays. They bother me because a government with the power to tell us that we must respect popular minorities has the power to do the opposite - to scapegoat unpopular minorities and target them for persecution.

Matters of personal conscience and free association shouldn't be up to laws, even when they're furthering my interests and preferences. Because inevitably, eventually, they won't be.

 

[Syriusly]

Meanwhile- I believe that persons and business's should be free to do what they will as long as they follow the law.

And if the law changed? I mean, that can happen, right? If the conservatives pass a law clamping down on internet sites that criticize them, you still be all excited about everyone following the law, right? If they turned the tables and outlawed gay marriage again, you'd still be on here advocating for the law, eh?.

If the law changed- and I disagreed with the law- I would still be saying that individuals and business's should follow the law- and I would try to change the law.

Hell there are laws today i disagree with- but that doesn't mean I think that a business shouldn't follow the law.

 

[Old Rocks]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

Private company, don't like their rules, start your own company, you whining little baby.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly you are unhappy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act which says that businesses can't discriminate against blacks and Jews and others.

I am - and I'm betting you don't get why. I'll bet you're clinging to a stereotype of me as a reactionary bigot or something. But this very thread lays out my argument. Laws like the Civil Rights Act, the 'protected classes' and 'public accommodations' etc, don't bother me because they prevent people from discriminating against blacks, Jews or gays. They bother me because a government with the power to tell us that we must respect popular minorities has the power to do the opposite - to scapegoat unpopular minorities and target them for persecution.

Matters of personal conscience and free association shouldn't be up to laws, even when they're furthering my interests and preferences. Because inevitably, eventually, they won't be.

Frankly I don't have much of an opinion about you one way or another- I have opinions about your opinions.

A government that has doesn't have the power to protect certain minorities from persecution does not guarantee that that same government would not have the power to scapegoat unpopular minorities.

As a matter of fact, history says just the opposite. We have a much longer history of scapegoating minorities in the United States than we do of protecting minority interests.

 

[Old Rocks]

YouTube....good for music is about it

For a dumb ass like you. Their scientific videos are first rate, when they are done by real scientists. You can find the lectures delivered at the annual meetings of the American Geophysical Union there, as well as many other such scientific lectures.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

YouTube....good for music is about it

For a dumb ass like you. Their scientific videos are first rate, when they are done by real scientists. You can find the lectures delivered at the annual meetings of the American Geophysical Union there, as well as many other such scientific lectures.

Go have some Metamucil and spew your leftist BS to someone who cares, ya decrepit old toad

 

[Valerie]

Never trust a mega corp who's motto is "Don't Be Evil".. That's more of a confession..

i find your viewpoint hilarious, especially in contrast to your sig line quote



The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.
>>>>> George Bernard Shaw




irony, thy name is flacaltenn

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Hell there are laws today i disagree with- but that doesn't mean I think that a business shouldn't follow the law

There is NO LAW. There is a Supreme Court decree.

One branch of government makes law. The SC has been overstepping it's power far too long.

Congress needs to impeach some of the them. We'll start with those who base their decisions in part on foreign law

 

[skye]

The Communists Totalitarians from Silicon Valley can not, and will not go on forever like this....banning all Conservative voices.

Let's wait and see what happens to these CIA controlled clowns.

 

[Dale Smith]

but Pumpkin girl argues that somehow FDR went back in a time machine and started the Great Depression.

You lie!

Show us where she said that.

YOUR credibility is at stake.

Pumpkin claimed twice that FDR 'caused' the Great Depression

Quoting her:

You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression,

When did the Great Depression start?
First of all- it is important to realize that the Great Depression was world wide- it actually started outside the United States.

The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression that took place mostly during the 1930s, originating in the United States.[dubious – discuss][unbalanced opinion?] The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; in most countries it started in 1929 and lasted until 1941.[1] It was the longest, deepest, and most widespread depression of the 20th century

What is the definition of economic 'Depression'?

One is:

1. a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%, or
2. a recession lasting 2 or more years.

FDR was elected in 1933- 4 years into the 'recession'- which means 2 years into the Great Depression.

The only way FDR could have 'caused' the Great Depression was if he hopped in a Time Machine and somehow became President instead of Hoover.

Woodrow Wilson was a socialist and he signed off on the Federal Reserve Act AND the 16th amendment in order to steal the wages of the American worker even though the required number of states never signed on for it. A central bank and a graduated income tax are planks in the communist manifesto in case you are unaware. The Great Depression for America had NOTHING to do with world markets.This was simply a wealth grab by the very elite that bribed Wilson into signing off on the Fed act of 1913. They artificially inflated the Stock Market and pulled out when it was at it's highest and then did a "margin call" which caused a run on the banks. When the market hit bottom, these thieves swooped in and bought up controlling shares of corporations that they wanted...they bought up unaffiliated banks and all for pennies on the dollar.

Then you have the sorriest POS ever, FDR that signed over our labor as surety against the debt when USA.INC went bankrupt to the very bankers that got control of our monetary system and then crashed the Stock Market. He totally sold us out and we lost allodial rights to property WHILE forced to turn in their REAL money (gold and silver) under penalty of fines and imprisonment in exchange for paper scrip we call Federal Reserve notes via House Joint Resolution 192.

.THEN, FDR fullfilled another plank of the Communist manifesto of the confiscation of private property. Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933. "The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership"is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State".

So, you were wrong and Pumpkin Row was correct....consider yourself "schooled".