[The Resister]

It may not be rocket science but it is certainly not the law. The most certainly can.

Now you posted a reference to your Rights of Man document twice. It honors private property. Why do you wish to ignore the private property rights of business owners?

Marketing is all about targeting. Suppose I own a bar. So I want my bar to cater to upscale patrons. So I impose a dress code. Call it a "TOS". In comes some guy who is disheveled and in violation of my dress code. I ask him to leave because he is likely to damage my business. Should I be allowed to do this? If so, then what is the difference between my TOS and YouTube's TOS? They both serve the same purpose.



It actually does neither. It "does" nothing. You are just joining a club of like minded people. In this case people who advocate intimidating the lawful government through the threat of arms.

At the end of the day though your "charter" may give you a warm fuzzy, and the armed blowhards with whom you will associate make you feel powerful, what you are really saying is that you do not have a message that can carry the day with the people who vote.

Trump lost because he couldn't sell what he was trying to sell. Same thing with your nonsensical manifesto. People won't buy it because they do not need it.

The cruelest irony is that you seem to be selling a solution in search of a problem. The majority of Americans simply do not believe there is a problem. That is what you need to sell. Running around with you second amendment weekend soldiers will not carry the day with them.


If nobody is being victimized then I have to ask...What the fuck are you going on about? As I just said. You propose a solution in search of a problem.

Stop the IQ shit please. It is not necessary to deliberately insult anyone. And trust me. Your posts are not at all hard to understand. I have heard this shit since 8th grade.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

That being said, I'm done with your condescending attitude that has caused me to post about one too many times here in anger. I came here to discuss an issue and offer an opinion. You cannot prove an opinion to be right or wrong because it's just that, an opinion. Even if a majority voted against an opinion, they would not be right. You were given the truth of how I feel, yet that has never been good enough for you. If anyone reads your criticisms and judges me by your words, they should sue their brains for non-support. So, now I can say to you good - bye and we're done.

[Godstud]

@The Resister You have been very rude and condescending to all posters since you arrived. While accusing @Drlee of doing something, simply because he showed you were wrong, you have done far worse.

Start over and don't consider an attack on your weak arguments to be an attack on your person.

[B0ycey]

I came here to discuss an issue and offer an opinion. You cannot prove an opinion to be right or wrong because it's just that, an opinion.

One thing I have learnt quickly on here is that opinions are almost impossible to change. Humans are stubborn creatures. But whilst you have written your own opinion and complained about shoe sizes for those how even dare to challenge it, you seem to have ignored everyone else's replies in any case. How is it discrimination against the Alt Right when the Left is being censored as well? How is it discrimination against the Alt Right when those voices still have remained on YouTube? And how is it discrimination against the Alt Right when YouTube is responsible for the content on their site and do not prevent them from using other sites to voice their opinion?

What would have happened is that those who have been banned would have broken the terms and conditions that they signed up for. They would have incited violence or continued to spread disinformation that could be harmful to society after repeated warnings and fact checks. And that isn't unique to the right. Those rules would apply to all. But because the Alt Right are crybabies, they are making the most noise about this now.

YouTube are responsible for policing their content. If you don't like that then use their competitors. And isn't that what libertarianism is all about? The freedom to choose?

[The Resister]

@The Resister You have been very rude and condescending to all posters since you arrived. While accusing @Drlee of doing something, simply because he showed you were wrong, you have done far worse.

Start over and don't consider an attack on your weak arguments to be an attack on your person.

No, I have NOT been condescending one bit. I've been subjected to name calling, people claiming they had me "pegged" as if to say I was lying about what I believe, and people trolling me and insinuating that I've been advocating committing illegal acts. I've been lied to, lied about, and those in attack mode apparently don't believe I should be able to respond to them in the same spirit.

Nobody has shown that I've been wrong about anything, sir. I'm not. On matters of fact versus opinion, I have experience and I've been and done, proving my point. To disbelieve is not the same as to disprove. My critics have NOT proven the factual portions of what I've said to be wrong in any way, shape, fashion, or form.

[Godstud]

@The Resister You accused people of not having sufficient IQ, so you DID act in a condescending manner. I don't give a fig what you think, but you stating that your opinion is RIGHT or FACTUAL, is in error. People showing you that doesn't make you have to toss insults like a monkey flinging poo.

We do have a few doctors in this forum, with @Drlee actually being one. His arguments make sense whereas yours do not. Your legal knowledge is irrelevant, as this is not about legality. Post sources for your material.

Where is this victimization we are supposed to be seeing?

[The Resister]

One thing I have learnt quickly on here is that opinions are almost impossible to change. Humans are stubborn creatures. But whilst you have written your own opinion and complained about shoe sizes for those how even dare to challenge it, you seem to have ignored everyone else's replies in any case. How is it discrimination against the Alt Right when the Left is being censored as well? How is it discrimination against the Alt Right when those voices still have remained on YouTube? And how is it discrimination against the Alt Right when YouTube is responsible for the content on their site and do not prevent them from using other sites to voice their opinion?

What would have happened is that those who have been banned would have broken the terms and conditions that they signed up for. They would have incited violence or continued to spread disinformation that could be harmful to society after repeated warnings and fact checks. And that isn't unique to the right. Those rules would apply to all. But because the Alt Right are crybabies, they are making the most noise about this now.

YouTube are responsible for policing their content. If you don't like that then use their competitors. And isn't that what libertarianism is all about? The freedom to choose?

You haven't read my previous posts. So, when I say this there will be one class of critics that will complain that I'm being repetitive and you will be reading this for the first time.

I am not a Democrat nor a Republican; neither liberal nor conservative; not left or right and I am not a Libertarian. I am an American that believes in the principles and values that the founders and framers of this country believed in. The Constitution guarantees us a Republican Form of Government (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution). That is a fact. We have sunk into a form of government that the founders and framers found repulsive - that being a "democracy" and that is a fact. Even Republicans cannot say the word republic. That is a fact.

Occasionally you will find some mainstream guy wanting to broker some kind of peace deal with the Democratic Socialists so they make a pretentious argument that America is a Democratic Republic. The framers tried that Democratic Republic concept and it imploded in only 42 years. That is a fact. The Democratic Republican Party was started in 1792 and it became so internally divisive it imploded and that is a fact.

My critics are crowing as if they proved me "wrong" about something. They haven't and that is a fact. I entered this thread with the presumption that YouTube banned the alt - right based upon the question asked in the OP. That is a fact. My responses were clearly hypothetical and I qualified each scenario with the word IF and I bolded it. That is a fact.

IF someone on the left is being unfairly treated I would speak up for them just as forcefully as I stood up for people in what is being called the alt - right. I have no major contacts on either side of that coin; don't know the players; don't know what it is they believe or disbelieve and that is a fact. What I can tell you is that I do not believe in the agenda of the left. Socialism doesn't work. Consider if you will that America has more people in prison than any country on this planet; over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply is consumed in the United States; to top it off we lead the world in Covid related deaths. Yet, out of all of the places on the face of the earth, we naturalize nearly a million new immigrants a year. We have more undocumented immigrants in our country than any other country on this planet has total immigrants (documented and undocumented combined). These are irrefutable facts.

IN MY OPINION, the two major hallmarks of the Republic that makes us a great nation is the Right to own property and the Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Expression. Critics claim that they have proven that is wrong. They have failed to show me evidence of that. When it comes to YouTube or anyone else, I do not believe that any business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, including the alt - right unless all businesses are held to the same standard. While it angers nearly everyone that criticizes me, these are IF scenarios. I'm being told on this thread that YouTube did not ban the alt right. In such a case, presuming that is true, the OP's question was purely hypothetical, but my reaction would be the same. It would have been the same reaction had you asked me if YouTube was right to ban someone spewing a message that I disagree with 100 percent across the board. That is a fact. My personal belief is that a private business does not owe the government nor the people anything other than the cost of their business license. Of course, we all know what the law is, but I'm not entitled to my own opinion on that point.

Given the laws and the parameters of the law, I have to work inside them. My support of private property Rights clashes with existing laws, but I believe the law to be wrong. Obviously I am not entitled to that opinion here. That does not make me wrong to disagree with an unjust law. History shows that if everybody is subject to he same unjust law, they will ultimately unite and oppose it. So, when any social media platform uses censorship as a form of control, and they do, they are wrong. Everywhere you go on social media, the powers that be have their own agenda. They like to have their own special rules and they are not compelled to respect any constitutional "right" you think you have. My opinion is that while you may have the "right" to do something, that doesn't make it right to do it. So FWIW, I would fight to the death for your Right to exercise your First Amendment Rights even if I disagree with your position 100 percent. THAT is what makes me different from the masses and it is the reason I am more than happy to be associated with THE CHARTER AND DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN. It was drafted in the spirit of our forefathers and that document is wholly consistent with the writings of the founders and framers.

[The Resister]

@The Resister You accused people of not having sufficient IQ, so you DID act in a condescending manner. I don't give a fig what you think, but you stating that your opinion is RIGHT or FACTUAL, is in error. People showing you that doesn't make you have to toss insults like a monkey flinging poo.

We do have a few doctors in this forum, with @Drlee actually being one. His arguments make sense whereas yours do not. Your legal knowledge is irrelevant, as this is not about legality. Post sources for your material.

Where is this victimization we are supposed to be seeing?

You are factually wrong. I have stated in no less than half a dozen posts that my replies are predicated on a lot of IFS and that my opinion was just that ... just an opinion. IF this were a formal debate forum, citing sources might be relevant. The rules here are such that citing any source becomes dicey. For example, a person's personal account of dealing with a hate group might be on another discussion board. As I understand the rules, you cannot cite another discussion board. There are other rules and the people who control this board decide how it is to be interpreted. If you ever want an actual link to a site of where I get my information, PM me.

When people have talked down to me, called me names, and made ridiculous allegations, I have met them in the same spirit. I have not stated that any particular poster had a low IQ. I only state that it takes someone with a given level of IQ to understand me. That is no slam on an individual. Sometimes people are criticizing their fellow posters with nothing more than hogwash (i.e. as in accusing me of promoting racism). So, I let you know that if you're expecting some other poster to buy that criticism, they may want to ascertain the facts.

[B0ycey]

I am not a Democrat nor a Republican; neither liberal nor conservative; not left or right and I am not a Libertarian. I am an American that believes in the principles and values that the founders and framers of this country believed in. The Constitution guarantees us a Republican Form of Government (Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution). That is a fact. We have sunk into a form of government that the founders and framers found repulsive - that being a "democracy" and that is a fact. Even Republicans cannot say the word republic. That is a fact.

Right, these "Facts" have nothing to do with this thread. That is a fact. A Republic can be a democracy. That is a Fact. The founding fathers haven't constitutionally prevented elected representation. That is a fact. The founding fathers wouldn't have heard of YouTube. That is a fact.

Occasionally you will find some mainstream guy wanting to broker some kind of peace deal with the Democratic Socialists so they make a pretentious argument that America is a Democratic Republic. The framers tried that Democratic Republic concept and it imploded in only 42 years. That is a fact.

By definition America is a Democratic Republic being that it is a Republic and Democratic. That is a fact. It doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans work together or not. They are elected representatives not best buds. That is a fact. And again this doesn't relate to the topic. That is a fact.

The Democratic Republican Party was started in 1792 and it became so internally divisive it imploded and that is a fact.

So?

My critics are crowing as if they proved me "wrong" about something. They haven't and that is a fact. I entered this thread with the presumption that YouTube banned the alt - right based upon the question asked in the OP. That is a fact. My responses were clearly hypothetical and I qualified each scenario with the word IF and I bolded it. That is a fact.

Your critics opponents are questioning your logic. That is a fact. You are currently executing a strawman by even discussing the founding fathers. That is a fact. And the question your opponents are asking is 'what evidence is there that the Alt Right is being targeted by YouTube?' They have even given you examples that you haven't addressed to prove you wrong BTW. That is a fact.

IF someone on the left is being unfairly treated I would speak up for them just as forcefully as I stood up for people in what is being called the alt - right. I have no major contacts on either side of that coin; don't know the players; don't know what it is they believe or disbelieve and that is a fact. What I can tell you is that I do not believe in the agenda of the left. Socialism doesn't work. Consider if you will that America has more people in prison than any country on this planet; over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply is consumed in the United States; to top it off we lead the world in Covid related deaths. Yet, out of all of the places on the face of the earth, we naturalize nearly a million new immigrants a year. We have more undocumented immigrants in our country than any other country on this planet has total immigrants (documented and undocumented combined). These are irrefutable facts.

This is definitely going off topic. You want to discuss Socialism and its clear benefits or undocumented immigration or drug trafficking, those arguments don't belong here. It is also something you have just brought up. People have only being discussing YouTube.

IN MY OPINION, the two major hallmarks of the Republic that makes us a great nation is the Right to own property and the Right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Expression. Critics claim that they have proven that is wrong. They have failed to show me evidence of that. When it comes to YouTube or anyone else, I do not believe that any business should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, including the alt - right unless all businesses are held to the same standard. While it angers nearly everyone that criticizes me, these are IF scenarios. I'm being told on this thread that YouTube did not ban the alt right. In such a case, presuming that is true, the OP's question was purely hypothetical, but my reaction would be the same. It would have been the same reaction had you asked me if YouTube was right to ban someone spewing a message that I disagree with 100 percent across the board. That is a fact. My personal belief is that a private business does not owe the government nor the people anything other than the cost of their business license. Of course, we all know what the law is, but I'm not entitled to my own opinion on that point.

Given the laws and the parameters of the law, I have to work inside them. My support of private property Rights clashes with existing laws, but I believe the law to be wrong. Obviously I am not entitled to that opinion here. That does not make me wrong to disagree with an unjust law. History shows that if everybody is subject to he same unjust law, they will ultimately unite and oppose it. So, when any social media platform uses censorship as a form of control, and they do, they are wrong. Everywhere you go on social media, the powers that be have their own agenda. They like to have their own special rules and they are not compelled to respect any constitutional "right" you think you have. My opinion is that while you may have the "right" to do something, that doesn't make it right to do it. So FWIW, I would fight to the death for your Right to exercise your First Amendment Rights even if I disagree with your position 100 percent. THAT is what makes me different from the masses and it is the reason I am more than happy to be associated with THE CHARTER AND DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN. It was drafted in the spirit of our forefathers and that document is wholly consistent with the writings of the founders and framers.

Blah blah blah. Start a new topic about what the founding fathers believed. This topic was about YouTube and the Alt Right. Perhaps the person whose shoe size is greater than their IQ doesn't even read what the thread is about.

As for YouTube discriminating against the Alt Right, they don't. I and others have explained why they don't. Those who are banned (Left and Right) broke the terms and conditions they signed up to. That isn't discrimination. That equal to all. And that is YouTubes legal responsibility in order to police their site from a legal standpoint. And that is a fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

You may discussed this stuff in secondary school, but you didn't discuss it in law school. You are wrong. If a party to any action makes a correlation between their situation and an existing principle of law, it should be discussed from a legal POV. In reality, there is no difference. A private business provides a service or product to the public. They should be able to equally discriminate OR they should all have to provide the product or service equally. It isn't rocket science.

What we have in America today is the process of disenfranchising part of the citizenry - which is what fragmented the Republican Party and has given Donald Trump a captive audience. It is not a system of equal justice. THAT is why the alt-right and Trump exist. YouTube can "legally" do what they did, but the law is wrong. When you oppress one segment of society, there will be push back. I will be putting my name on that charter as it provides an equal playing field for all with no special privileges for anyone while limiting the government. Now do we move forward?

You seem very offended.

For this reason, it is difficult to parse your actual argument.

As far as I can tell, there is no argument here, Just a vague warning of push back.

And you never answered my question.

[late]

As far as I can tell, there is no argument here, Just a vague warning of push back.

He doesn't have an argument.

What he has is fear, and an allegiance to a culture that has discrimination in it's DNA.

That culture sees freedom as a Zero Sum Game. Your freedom depends almost entirely on taking freedom from others. It's what evolved out of the West Barbados slave owning culture.

Few people have the intelligence and integrity to work their way out of that trap.

[The Resister]

Right, these "Facts" have nothing to do with this thread. That is a fact. A Republic can be a democracy. That is a Fact. The founding fathers haven't constitutionally prevented elected representation. That is a fact. The founding fathers wouldn't have heard of YouTube. That is a fact.



By definition America is a Democratic Republic being that it is a Republic and Democratic. That is a fact. It doesn't matter if the Democrats or Republicans work together or not. They are elected representatives not best buds. That is a fact. And again this doesn't relate to the topic. That is a fact.


So?



Your critics opponents are questioning your logic. That is a fact. You are currently executing a strawman by even discussing the founding fathers. That is a fact. And the question your opponents are asking is 'what evidence is there that the Alt Right is being targeted by YouTube?' They have even given you examples that you haven't addressed to prove you wrong BTW. That is a fact.



This is definitely going off topic. You want to discuss Socialism and its clear benefits or undocumented immigration or drug trafficking, those arguments don't belong here. It is also something you have just brought up. People have only being discussing YouTube.



Blah blah blah. Start a new topic about what the founding fathers believed. This topic was about YouTube and the Alt Right. Perhaps the person whose shoe size is greater than their IQ doesn't even read what the thread is about.

As for YouTube discriminating against the Alt Right, they don't. I and others have explained why they don't. Those who are banned (Left and Right) broke the terms and conditions they signed up to. That isn't discrimination. That equal to all. And that is YouTubes legal responsibility in order to police their site from a legal standpoint. And that is a fact.

The framers did NOT allow for the direct election of Senators. So you are factually wrong.
The framers or more accurately one of them authored the First Amendment. You may have heard about it.
I don't have any strawman arguments since my opinions are based upon the founders vision of America.
The original poster made asked a question that presumed YouTube banned the alt-right. I gave my opinions based upon that.

ALL of the above are irrefutable FACTS. You cannot change them. Up until recently, Americans knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

Again, for the last time, I fully protected my opinion from this kind of criticisms by stressing that word IF just in case the scenario as presented was not accurate. Since your post is about me and not the topic, I don't have to respond to your insult. Rest assured, the original post is not about me and that is a fact.

[Pants-of-dog]

@The Resister

You never answered my question:
Why can businesses kick the alt-right out but not Muslims or blacks? Do you know?

[QatzelOk]

You are babbling.

Actually, the problem is that Resister quotes too many words from previous posts, and then fills his own reply with too much Ad Hom.

Resister, if you want a lot of people to read your posts, try to zero in on the important sentences of a previous poster's thoughts, and then concentrate on refuting these *points* in as few words as possible, and with helpful links to back up what you are writing.

[B0ycey]

The framers did NOT allow for the direct election of Senators. So you are factually wrong.

I have no idea what this has got to do with YouTube and I didn't even mention the elections for new Senators so how can I be factually wrong? I never made such a claim to be wrong to being with

Nonetheless I don't really know whether the Founding fathers wanted elected Senators or not, but being that elected Senators aren't unconstitutional, that suggests to me that there wasn't much thought on it. It was all to do with giving smaller states equal representation than dictating semantics I suggest.

I don't have any strawman arguments since my opinions are based upon the founders vision of America.

It's a strawman for two reasons. The first, it has nothing to do with the topic. And the second, nobody brought it up. You have used it to back up a claim that the Alt Right are being discriminated against but have failed to link that to the fact that the founding fathers hadn't even heard of YouTube, let alone make it unconstitutional for them to have terms and conditions.

The original poster made asked a question that presumed YouTube banned the alt-right. I gave my opinions based upon that.

So. You have opposing views. Should they roll over to not hurt your feelings? This is a forum. Debating is part of the package of membership.

ALL of the above are irrefutable FACTS. You cannot change them. Up until recently, Americans knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

Again, for the last time, I fully protected my opinion from this kind of criticisms by stressing that word IF just in case the scenario as presented was not accurate. Since your post is about me and not the topic, I don't have to respond to your insult. Rest assured, the original post is not about me and that is a fact.

A Republic can be democratic. That is just a fact. In fact the US is a Republic and holds elections.

Nonetheless I don't care about your opinion. You are still wrong and haven't addressed peoples counter arguments on the topic in any case. You just spout strawmen and complain they have no IQ. How about addressing just the topic and show us your IQ is something greater than your shoe size.

[Drlee]

Shall we set the issue of "the founders" to rest.

The founders, if you include in them the author of our most important document, Jefferson, realized, and shouted from the rooftops that the constitution could be and absolutely very much should be evolutionary. The founders knew that it was and should be a work in progress. Need I quote their ubiquitous writings on the subject? It appears that @The Resister has somehow missed this in his "education".

So Register. Since "the founders" are the be all and end all of American governance should we repeal this one because they did not embrace it:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Should we Sport? Are you one of those guys? Do you want to stick to your one-and-done notion of constitutional law?

You whine about the direct election of Senators because.....founders. We have had that amendment, which by the way was ratified in near record time, for over 100 years. But you see Register, I think that we should look at senators. I think they should be apportioned by population. How would that sit with you?

I have carefully read what you have posted and concluded that your arguments are facile and shallow. And when I specifically and carefully rebutted them you refused to answer. In fact you are stating your position with no discussion to support your opinions. How about you try to convince us of the rightness of your position rather than just complaining?

I make no claims about my education or standing to speak on any subject. For all you know I could be a 16 year old girl in her grandpa's attic. It is wise to take whatever you read on an internet forum with a grain of salt. I do not paint you with any particular brush. You could be a 15 year old posting when there is a lull in the Hello Kitty forum. So what you have to do here is support your positions with an argument. Over the decade I have been here and the many years before as a lurker arguments posted here have changed my positions many times. Sometimes quite profoundly. Try stating your case. See what happens.

[The Resister]

He doesn't have an argument.

What he has is fear, and an allegiance to a culture that has discrimination in it's DNA.

That culture sees freedom as a Zero Sum Game. Your freedom depends almost entirely on taking freedom from others. It's what evolved out of the West Barbados slave owning culture.

Few people have the intelligence and integrity to work their way out of that trap.

It appears that you can insult me and get away with it. I don't fear a damn soul. Insofar as your implication that I'm a racist, they will not allow me the latitude to tell you exactly what I think. Dr. Phil you ain't and if asking a question makes any man a racist, then people like YOU have problems that are too big for even Dr. Phil.

[Drlee]

And we see, yet again, that @The Resister is unable to put forward an argument for his positions other than he feels this way.

[The Resister]

Shall we set the issue of "the founders" to rest.

The founders, if you include in them the author of our most important document, Jefferson, realized, and shouted from the rooftops that the constitution could be and absolutely very much should be evolutionary. The founders knew that it was and should be a work in progress. Need I quote their ubiquitous writings on the subject? It appears that @The Resister has somehow missed this in his "education".

So Register. Since "the founders" are the be all and end all of American governance should we repeal this one because they did not embrace it:





Should we Sport? Are you one of those guys? Do you want to stick to your one-and-done notion of constitutional law?

You whine about the direct election of Senators because.....founders. We have had that amendment, which by the way was ratified in near record time, for over 100 years. But you see Register, I think that we should look at senators. I think they should be apportioned by population. How would that sit with you?

I have carefully read what you have posted and concluded that your arguments are facile and shallow. And when I specifically and carefully rebutted them you refused to answer. In fact you are stating your position with no discussion to support your opinions. How about you try to convince us of the rightness of your position rather than just complaining?

I make no claims about my education or standing to speak on any subject. For all you know I could be a 16 year old girl in her grandpa's attic. It is wise to take whatever you read on an internet forum with a grain of salt. I do not paint you with any particular brush. You could be a 15 year old posting when there is a lull in the Hello Kitty forum. So what you have to do here is support your positions with an argument. Over the decade I have been here and the many years before as a lurker arguments posted here have changed my positions many times. Sometimes quite profoundly. Try stating your case. See what happens.

Did Jefferson think the Constitution should be evolutionary? Hmmm... Not exactly:

"... on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past(sic)."

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 01-02-3562

The fact that you would call me "Register" is either to further the insult OR show that you really missed YOUR educational opportunities. The balance of your post is irrelevant, insulting, inaccurate, and it violates the rules of this board. It isn't civil and I'd bet you my home (which is fully paid for) against a thousand dollars on your part that I have more secondary education than you have total education. I am willing to let the moderator who edited my posts hold the deed and your money while we produce evidence of our education.

[Drlee]

The fact that you would call me "Register" is either to further the insult OR show that you really missed YOUR educational opportunities. The balance of your post is irrelevant, insulting, inaccurate, and it violates the rules of this board. It isn't civil and I'd bet you my home (which is fully paid for) against a thousand dollars on your part that I have more secondary education than you have total education. I am willing to let the moderator who edited my posts hold the deed and your money while we produce evidence of our education.

You really are insecure, aren't you? You seem to be obsessed with my personal details. Give it a rest Sport. Here's is what you should do. Instead of bluffing and blustering around about how smart you are, why don't you try developing an argument.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

So much for your manifesto.

Jefferson. “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

That could not be less ambiguous.

Hankok Gentlemen,

I Submit it to your Consideration whether you will instruct your Senators and Representatives to attend to the obtaining Amendments in the Constitution of the United States —

You will recollect that when that System was ratified by the Convention of this Commonwealth it was done on the Idea that Amendments should be finally effected. The

people have well grounded Expectations that this important matter will be attended to; for my own part I wish the World to know that I was Sincere

in the part I Took on this Subject. I had not, nor will I ever have any other than plain, open & undisguised politicks –

I should dread as a great Calamity a new general Convention upon this Business. The form of Government has pointed out an easy method to procure alterations – Congress may propose to the Legislatures such Amendments as appear to be necessary, and in this way there can be no hazard, but another Convention might Amount to a dissolution of the Government, I feel my self obliged therefore to urge you to give our Senators and Representatives such positive instructions on this Subject as may lead to the peace, Security and Tranquility of the Union—

I could go on. I wait expectantly for your considered response and not some bullshit posturing about who has a bigger penis.

[The Resister]

Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right?

I posted my thoughts and the subject and then proceeded to ask some questions. NONE of those questions were answered. Then, because I asked a question, this entire thread has become a referendum over whether or not I'm a racist. IF I were, I would own up to it. Unfortunately for those who claim to have me "pegged" they are wrong. I've been insulted here and called all manner of names. But, I will tell all of you this:

You still weren't right.

As it turns out, it is said here that the Alt-Right was never banned in the first place. So, I feel I was had by not fully researching the subject to ascertain the facts. That way I would have known that answering the question was click bait. Still, from a moral perspective, Youtube is not much different than any other business and the rules that apply to other businesses should apply to YouTube. Maybe they already do and maybe they don't. My answer was predicated solely on the presupposition that YouTube banned an organization from posting videos. The response was hypothetical. IF, and there is that disqualifier IF Youtube locked people out for having an unpopular view, then a first year attorney could probably win the case based on anti-trust suits alone.

I only asked why it was permissible to lock people out who are racists and the feedback I've gotten has been hateful, insulting, and nowhere close to being civil. IF we lock racists out of society, who's next? (BTW, see that IF in there) Who will the next group be to get singled out for exclusion and on what basis? I don't even care any longer... at least not on this board. I've found out here what it is like to be subjected to treatment that is indefensible by any standards. Sorry I asked the question. Sorry that I crossed your lines and I'm NOT the subject of this thread, so leave me alone and let's not argue any longer. I'm not afraid of you; we're just not on a level playing field. It's disrespectful to the original poster. He or she asked you a question, so from here on out, you should focus on that.