Drlee wrote:Now what does it have to do with my opinion on governance?
It's not simply your opinion on governance. You equate Trump's inaction on Russia--read Rex Tillerson's, who has now been fired--with treason. If the Russian state hacked the DNCs server--there isn't much evidence they did; and the FBI has been denied the opportunity to conduct their own forensic investigation--that isn't anything the US isn't already doing anywhere else. Also, since the DNC is a private corporation, if the Russian state or Russians in general hacked the DNC server it is not an act of war. During the Obama administration, Obama went from being a nominal defender of DOMA to being pro-gay marriage while the SCOTUS tried to get us to believe that gay marriage is embedded in the 14th Amendment, whereas its authors probably would have hung Kennedy and his thin majority by their necks for such an opinion. He not only flipped (obviously he already believed that was the case and was just lying about it), he trolled Vladimir Putin during the Sochi Olympics on the subject of gay propaganda. So it is fairly obvious that people who are looking to equate Trump's "inaction" with "treason" are more than likely probably gay or in furtherance of the LGBTQ agenda pushed by Obama--yet, another factor in why the Democrats lost white working class voters.
Drlee wrote:You brought it up simply to rankle.
I brought it up to highlight the point that most of the world, indeed most Americans, aren't losing their marbles over Russia.
Drlee wrote:There are many ideas that George Soros embraces that I embrace also also. This is true of Ronald Reagan, Ghandi, Locke, MLK, Marx, and you. What is your point?
Reagan did not believe in a borderless world. Besides, if such a notion had any material value at all, Russia couldn't be an enemy since there would really be no Russia or no United States for all practical purposes. If the US wants to promote open borders and an end to the nation state, it should stop whining and grow up when other nation states take advantage of the comically naive ideals of today's left.
Drlee wrote:Are you surprised that I ''''tend'''' to be on the side of dynastic power? Duh.
It's one of the general inconsistencies in your political position.
Drlee wrote:Or have you finally embraced the notion that a bunch of relatively uneducated Bubbas have become the definition of "conservatism".
Your "relatively uneducated Bubbas" are more consistent with conservative values.
Drlee wrote:I take it that you have exchanged the likes of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley, for Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
I was never completely impressed with any of them. Of all of them, I liked Buckley the most but found him a bit too self satisfied. Nixon gave us the EPA and was toying with universal income, so I would hardly characterize him as a conservative. If you're ready to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I would take you more seriously on extolling Goldwater.
Drlee wrote:Yes. Conservatives have been doing that since 1776. Washington was an officer of the British government for a very long time.
Washington wasn't a conservative. He was actively involved in overthrowing the existing government and replacing it with a different type of government. That is not the definition of a conservative. He was a revolutionary.
Drlee wrote:Russia is only a "has-been power as long as the US and others move to thwart its ambitions. We have been successful in doing that for many decades. That is until Trump who refuses to do anything about their openly hostile acts toward us.
Again, this is not true and betrays a significant ignorance of recent history. I've said for nearly two decades now that the US cannot maintain a deterrence against other powers with the size of military it has. This was proven rather poignantly when the US was laying the groundwork for getting Georgia to join NATO. When Shakashvili thought he was safely under the auspices of the US, Putin invaded George in 2008. George W. Bush couldn't do jack shit about it. If the US had heavy tanks there, the Russians would have been routed and they know it. They also know that the US is completely mapped right now and has been for over a decade.
We can't thwart Russia's ambitions if we can't thwart our own first. We don't have the resources to do that. Likewise, we have no moral high ground to lecture other countries about interfering in governance of other countries, since we do it all the time. Barack Obama learned from George W. Bush and raised Bush's two wars with the overthrow of governments in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Ukraine while failing to counter ISIS in Iraq by a premature pullout and created the largest humanitarian crisis since WWII in his effort to overthrow the government of Syria. It is little wonder that Russia could simply annex Crimea without firing a shot. The EU militarily is an empty suit sans Great Britain, and even they are looking sort of pathetic now.
Drlee wrote:I am ready to see your evidence of this. I doubt it will be forthcoming.
The evidence is plainly available. The deep state has not proved that there was no wrongdoing. They have proved that they conspire to protect each other and conspire against the will of the American people and frankly do not care what people think now--this arrogance has cost them yet another presidential election they could have easily won if they weren't so obstinate and arrogant. Like you used to muse with respect to Trump, I could show these folks how to win. However, I don't want to. I enjoy watching them lose. They already know how to lie. They are just freaks and can't accept their own nature.
Drlee wrote:You say these alleged actions are "politically motivated". Do tell me which party they are "all" acting to support?
Is this your textual attempt at guffaw? I've said for I don't know how many years that they create the "illusion" of bipartisanship or partisanship depending on their objective. John McCain and Chuck Schumer for all practical purposes are on the same side. George F. Will isn't really a conservative, etc. You take the Democratic party position far more than the Republican party and for some reason refuse to register with the party that more accurately reflects your views. You would be fine with Hillary Clinton as president. You would be just as comfortable with Jeb Bush, but would criticize him as president far more than you would Hillary Clinton if she were president. My point isn't just that I'm calling you out on it. More than half the electorate is doing that too. Your game is over, Drlee.
Drlee wrote:Poor special snowflake republicans. The whole government is out to get them. Federal employees have formed a "deep state". Perhaps they have moonlight meetings the skull and bones clubhouse.
I care fuck all about the Republican party. It's a corporation. That's it. I'm just as happy to transpose your argument to nation states. "Poor special snowflake Americans. The big bad Russians are out to get them. Some little punk hackers hacked a website. They must have some secret Russian handshake or something."
4cal wrote:YouTube can have what it wants on its website.
It can, but it can not arbitrarily change the terms of an implied contract. I think it may take some time for a legal theory to arise that has staying power. Basically, YouTube induced people like those behind PragerU to create videos with the promise that content creators could host them on YouTube free of charge in exchange for a share of advertising revenue. YouTube's staff doesn't like PragerU's political positions, so they have made supercilious arguments along the lines of PragerU's videos aren't suitable for children and so begin demonetizing them, flagging their content as inappropriate for children, etc. By publishing a policy, YouTube has effectively induced people by fraud into investing in the creation of videos only to have those who made those investments lose the opportunity to monetize them because staff within YouTube disagrees with the political positions of those creating the videos. That's fraud in the inducement.
skinster wrote:Alison Weir of organization IfAmericansKnew had her organization's YouTube videos removed. She wrote about the experience a few days ago:
It's totally cool to post a hyperlink...
Sivad wrote:It doesn't boil down to that all. It's a complicated issue that brings many fundamental principles into conflict and competition. It has to be sorted out through the courts.
Agreed. That will take some time though as the courts are politically charged now too.
4cal wrote:Complicated? YouTube is under no obligation to air anything that it finds repulsive, dishonest, illegal, etc….
That depends. It take time to make a video. If YouTube promises a platform for content creators in exchange for a share of advertising revenue. I would say this is an offer, and a content creator who creates a YouTube channel and begins uploading videos is accepting the offer where the consideration is a share of advertising revenue. If I were a judge, I would hold that YouTube cannot arbitrarily change the terms of this agreement unless their is a clear violation of the law; and, that the old terms must apply to videos when they were uploaded, not when YouTube arbitrarily decides to change the rules. I would further rule that YouTube has to provide reasonable notice. For the purposes of video production, that should be approximately 90 days.
4cal wrote:Perhaps you’d be in favor of people uploading videos of anal sex and bomb making?
That is done all the time. YouTube has always been opposed to providing a platform for pornography. However, other platforms like YouPorn do just that. It's completely lawful. You can't offer one set of terms to a person and then change them when it suits you simply because you are in a superior bargaining position. That is unconscionable. YouTube is clearly guilty of that.
Decky wrote:Sivad seems to be under the impression that youtube is a branch of the government not a private company. I have already tried to explain to him that it has not obligation to broadcast anything it does not want to.
I always find it amusing that people who purport to be communists defend private property rights to the hilt. You are the people who find yourselves despondent that people don't adopt socialism, but you are the best defenders of capitalism out there.
If YouTube makes an offer to broadcast videos under publicly published terms and a content creator accepts for consideration of a share of advertising revenue, this creates a contract and YouTube must abide by those terms. It cannot use its superior bargaining position to change the terms of an agreement or serve as the final arbiter in a dispute over the terms of the agreement.
I would further argue that in a dispute arising over the terms of a video, YouTube has to pay the content creator for the likely number of views and ad impressions it would receive and submit the dispute to a third party arbitration service.
Anyway, one of Google's founders is a Russian. We should be very afraid!
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden