Was Youtube Right to Ban the Alt-Right? - Page 34 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Was Youtube Right to Ban Bismarck?

YES
27
51%
NO
26
49%
#15155814
ingliz wrote:What are you wittering on about? Inalienable or unalienable, legally, there is no difference. They both refer to rights that cannot be taken away or transferred.

If it's more 'Founders' bollocks you want, the Rough Draft* of The Declaration of Independence reads inalienable. Congress didn't change it. It was John Adams in making his copy of the Rough Draft to send to the printers who wrote unalienable.


* Hint: Tap the screen and the image will enlarge.


You are right. Congress did not change the word unalienable in the Declaration of Independence, but the courts interpreted the word inalienable differently and built a body of case law around that concept. Like it or not, there IS a difference.

Godstud wrote:Please provide some actual evidence for this ridiculous claim. The very idea is asinine.


Start a thread on that topic and I'll be more than happy to provide the evidence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think I am insulting you, please report my post to moderation.

There are two ways you can do this. One is through the drop down menu available in the top right hand corner of my post. The second is by starting a thread in the Basement. The moderators appreciate this, but please read the instructions on how to post there properly.

Now, whose rights are inalienable?

Youtube?
The alt-right?
Non-whites?

Thanks!


Everyone who does not proclaim and demand their unalienable Rights has inalienable rights. It is a long story, not part of the OP and if anyone wants to know, they will start a thread and ask me there.
#15155826
Drlee wrote:@The Resister



Of course none of this squares with the life narrative you have posted already. You claim vast education, considerable wealth and political power. Now you want us to weep for you. Poor little snowflake. Those black folks have had their foot on your neck. :roll: The above reads like typical racist white supremacist propaganda. Better fit for Stormfront than here. And I don't believe a word of it. "The sting of affirmative action." :lol:



Another racist rant. Care to explain what you mean by "alleged actions". Are you claiming that slavery, Jim Crow, and racial discrimination may not have occurred?



Guy you need to learn something. The people who post here are usually pretty educated folks. This is not our first rodeo. You can't sell this nonsense here. There is not a soul, except perhaps one, who is believing any of this. It does not pass the stink test.

We know garden variety racists when we see them. We have heard the white supremacist rhetoric before. We have heard these nonsensical claims from many people before. Though you can find a great many people who will fall for this nonsense, you will not find many here.


You either have me mixed up with someone OR you are terribly dishonest. We can give you another try at this.

I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I blew a lot of my retirement money on being a political / social activist for the constitutionalist cause (it no longer exists). Don't need pity and never asked for it. So, why are you making crap up?

Let me clue you in. When I was a kid, I lived in a house without wiring or plumbing. We used mud as insulation and we had to go to a covered spring for water. It was dreadful. One would encounter snakes, lizards, and then there were salamanders all around the well. At school, the first through sixth grades were in one room and seventh through twelfth grades in another. One teacher was also the principal while the other was a cook and teacher. You ate lunch at your desk while students had to haul coal in to cook lunch and keep the place warm via the two coal burning stoves. The bathroom was an outhouse.

We grew what we ate, milked the cows, had our own chickens, and that was life. So, when people give me these sob stories about discrimination, my reaction is to get over it. I wasn't taught to blame anyone for the hand God or fate or whatever dealt me. At age of 14 I ran away from home, got an education, built my way up in the world, and the only obstacle ever in my way was the government and their vote buying schemes. So, take the B.S. somewhere else.

Insofar as people calling me a racist, IF anyone actually believes what you are saying about me, they are NOT intelligent. It's that simple. But, guess what. I don't care any longer. What is more important at this juncture, if there are only racists and whatever category you're in with nothing else in this world, then you would be better off not promoting artificial equality at the threat of violence, censorship, and duress. I don't wear any labels and when I've visited those white supremacist sites, asking them to openly discuss the issues, I get the same treatment from them as I get from people like you. I did make it two posts on Stormfront once before they banned me. National Socialists cannot face the facts either. So you have more in common with them than I do.

You can make all the allegations you want, but what I perceive are people who cannot stay on topic. So a handful come here to protect their turf. They are like hall monitors that try to push people they don't like so they can rat them out and have them sent to the principal's office. On my way in I stated that I am not conservative or liberal; right or left; Democrat or Republican. I threw in the Libertarian Party for good measure. But, you want to know what really whizzes me off? I'd bet my last dollar that there isn't a swinging soul criticizing me that does not demand that you chant some liberal mantra on the way in the door. If you aren't a social liberal and spout their nonsensical swill, you are not welcome. It's a common trait among National Socialists as well. The only difference is who you play the tune to. BTW, were YOU subjected to this much scrutiny as a prerequisite to posting here?

Since we're talking about discrimination, then is it not true if this were up to you, anyone not a social liberal would be banned from posting on this board? YOU advocate discrimination too. I don't. That is why we're here. I was led to believe the alt-right got banned on Youtube (see the title of the OP). If the question had been, do you think the BLM should have been banned from Youtube, my answer would have been the same, exact thing. I don't get that from my critics. The criticisms, whether intentional or not (and some are blatantly intentional) sound like the Klan with a tan kind of arguing. And I realize that it whizzes you off that I don't respond the way you want me to, but I'm fed up with both sides. People keep making allegations to keep from addressing the OP, but I am not the subject of this thread. The racists didn't want to deal with me because I didn't pay fealty to Trump; I denounced the silly wall idea; berated them for separating families and punishing children for their parents mistakes.

Right is right and wrong is wrong AND none of the aforementioned sides has the courage or the decency to admit when they are wrong. I will say this much:

As soon as the Declaration of Independence was ratified, the colonists began working toward a working government. Eleven years later we had the Constitution of the United States (which is a relic from a bygone era). Before, during, and after the ratification of the Constitution, people came from all over the world to partake of opportunities willingly offered and certain unalienable Rights were extended to EVERY person. Now, maybe only Whites could become citizens; Hell only landowners could vote - that is a privilege doled out by government. But, the bottom line was, until recent years, everybody had unalienable Rights. THAT is why people came here. And the cold, hard, harsh reality is that without unalienable Rights all those civil rights, privileges, and immunities that are doled out by government on a whim are as worthless as a eunuch in a whorehouse. So think about that today.
#15155828
Pants-of-dog wrote:@The Resister

If your entire argument depends on a non-standard use of terminology that you will not define, people are unable to address it.

Have a good day.


Point taken. Some of the terminology, however, has to be discussed separate and apart from this thread. We simply need more threads to discuss differences instead of going down hundreds of side roads because people really don't know what they don't know.
#15155832
The Resister wrote:Point taken. Some of the terminology, however, has to be discussed separate and apart from this thread. We simply need more threads to discuss differences instead of going down hundreds of side roads because people really don't know what they don't know.


Create your own threads. If you write the OP, you dictate the terms of the discussion. Otherwise waiting for someone to address your points for you is never going to happen whether they are interested in them or not.
#15155836
The Resister wrote:[unalienable/inalienable] terminology

There is no such thing as an 'unalienable' right when a change in the law changes the nature of that right - Rights and freedoms cannot be exercised in the US if contrary to the purposes and principles of evolving case law - so, what does it matter what you call them?

In modern usage, unalienable/inalienable is merely a distinction of dialectical orthography. Your argument, such as it is, is redundant.


:lol:
#15155839
If the question had been, do you think the BLM should have been banned from Youtube, my answer would have been the same, exact thing. I don't get that from my critics. The criticisms, whether intentional or not (and some are blatantly intentional) sound like the Klan with a tan kind of arguing. And I realize that it whizzes you off that I don't respond the way you want me to, but I'm fed up with both sides. People keep making allegations to keep from addressing the OP, but I am not the subject of this thread. The racists didn't want to deal with me because I didn't pay fealty to Trump; I denounced the silly wall idea; berated them for separating families and punishing children for their parents mistakes.


I am not sure what this means.

But, you want to know what really whizzes me off? I'd bet my last dollar that there isn't a swinging soul criticizing me that does not demand that you chant some liberal mantra on the way in the door.


Really? I am a conservative, life long Republican. I am an old man so I remember when the Republican Party did not cozy up to racists but rather forwarded a strong anti-racist agenda. John Kennedy (who by today's standards would be considered very conservative on most issues and strongly anti-communist) started the affirmative action concept (well sort of) with an executive order. The owner of this site is a conservative.

I would also remind you that anti-racism IS a conservative virtue. We may disagree on the methodology but there is no room for racism in educated conservative thought. It is not only morally wrong, it is politically unwise. (Ask the republicans in Georgia how their racist rhetoric and attempted voter suppression worked out for them and how they like their two new Democrat senators.)

Where you will find little sympathy here is for any rhetoric advancing white victim hood. It just won't fly with educated people. All citizenship is give and take. Democracy requires that we ALL sacrifice for one another. Had you been a soldier you may have acquired a more complete appreciation of how that works. We asked black soldiers to die for their country and then sent them home to a place where they could not use the same restroom as I could. And this was not eons ago as you said. It was in my lifetime and I saw it. MANY black folks are alive today who would face death for flirting with a white woman or arrest for sitting at the white lunch counter. Telling those folks that you feel oppressed by your whiteness might not gain you much sympathy.
#15155840
The Resister wrote:You are talking to the wrong person. As a teen, I lost my first job which was high paying union job to a black due to affirmative action. Sure, the government tells the sheeple that employers were not allowed to fire us, but they merely laid us off and when the next project was started, the employers hired Blacks due to affirmative action. ALL of my life I've felt the sting of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, racial quotas, racial preference in hiring, and Whites that were scared to death NOT to hire a Black or call them on the carpet when they screwed up.

I've never laid the blame on the Black people for the disparity. It's always been connected to the government AND to self hating Whites that think we should be obligated to destroy ourselves for alleged actions that took place eons ago - and the reality doesn't match the hype we've created surrounding it. I've never had "White privilege." My race has AL:WAYS worked against me in getting hired, promoted, and getting paid as much as the people in the companies I worked for. My last employer hired me because I didn't look White. It was really a good thing, however. It inspired me to go back to school (though I got discriminated against in one college because I was neither Black nor female). I ultimately ended up working for myself most of the time and earning my piece of the American pie.

While I'm at it, I have NEVER crowed about "inalienable" rights; I'm talking about unalienable Rights. I bold the word because there is a legal difference. It is a very important distinction in law. If not for the cancer of inalienable rights (sic) you would GLADLY sign the charter to which I allude because it demands that the government acknowledge and respect your unalienable Rights. Don't let the laymen fool you. There is a major legal difference between those two seemingly innocuous words.

We may not get discriminated against "equally," but that is irrelevant. It's just life. Sometimes you have to quit blaming the government, other races, etc. and become the master of your own destiny.


Master of your own destiny? Your story of affirmative action and how the Black guy who is not as qualified gets the preferences.

My group lost the leader even though he was the most brilliant of the students. They discriminated against him because no way a Black background Harvard Law school graduate could be the valedictorian because Blacks are not qualified. Only white guys are the smart ones. Why do they think this bullshit? Because the discrimination ain't equal.

Yes, Pedro the polyglot super intelligent guy had to be discriminated against. because he was an effective nationalist.



To hell with the hypocritical moaners about how they are discriminated against. Go get imprisoned and get radiation and die trying to just get your homeland liberated from a bunch of racist monaers.
#15155847
Tainari88 wrote:Master of your own destiny? Your story of affirmative action and how the Black guy who is not as qualified gets the preferences.

My group lost the leader even though he was the most brilliant of the students. They discriminated against him because no way a Black background Harvard Law school graduate could be the valedictorian because Blacks are not qualified. Only white guys are the smart ones. Why do they think this bullshit? Because the discrimination ain't equal.

Yes, Pedro the polyglot super intelligent guy had to be discriminated against. because he was an effective nationalist.



To hell with the hypocritical moaners about how they are discriminated against. Go get imprisoned and get radiation and die trying to just get your homeland liberated from a bunch of racist monaers.


If your posting had a meaning, it flew over my head. In my case, I worked on a union job. When the job we were on was completed, we are sent home for a couple of weeks. When a new project is started, union bosses call us and let us know we do not have a job because Black people have to be hired due to affirmative action guidelines. I had the experience and the seniority. The hue of my skin was my problem. Black guys did exactly what I'd do. They jumped on the opportunity. They were never the problem in my view. The government was the problem.

My point is, I didn't wail and moan; bitch and complain. I went out there and found something else. America is such that if you can't find a job, you can create one. In college, the only jobs were restaurant jobs. Nights, weekends, and holidays were a bust. That's not a job for a young guy. I advertised in a small paper called the Penny Pincher offering to do odd jobs around the house - cleaning gutters, cut the grass, paint the deck, whatever. For someone with little ambition, that could have been a career.

It is not the job of an employer to provide you with a job. People discriminate against me all the time. And you should read what the Trump supporters said when I would offer jobs, no lily White boys ever applied and I hired day laborers. That made me a race traitor, left wing socialist, and anything derogatory they could post on discussion boards. The critics here who have declared their superiority have decided that nothing I tell them is going to change the bottom line. In over a hundred posts aimed at me personally, there has yet to be one, single, solitary, link posted on this thread that links what I believe in with ANY other political ideology, racial ideology, group, organization, political party, etc. It's as if they don't care what the founders and framers believed in and the only thing that is accomplished on discussion boards is to create echo chambers, whine about the world situation, and create clique groups that do not effect change in society for the better. The discussion boards I've stopped by were great exercise centers. People were running amok, jumping to conclusions, passing the buck, pointing fingers, flying off the handle, and carrying things too far.

I don't care what they think about me. If you answer to God then whatever else people think is irrelevant. My takeaway from this thread is that if the people who drafted the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence were alive today, most Americans would have those people drawn and quartered at the county courthouse. That, of course presumes that the gurus and hall monitors on the boards I've gone to are a fair representation of the American populace.
#15155886
@The Resister
My takeaway from this thread is that if the people who drafted the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence were alive today, most Americans would have those people drawn and quartered at the county courthouse.


You know I can see how you feel that way. Many people today have lost sight of what the political process should be. It goes like this:

What specifically, in the Declaration of Independence, is it with which do you think that most Americans disagree?

I will tell you that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to see the government abolished so they would not favor the radical action taken by the signatories of the Declaration. In fact, the signatories were adamant about the severity of their action:

D of I says: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


We the people can amend the constitution to establish anything we want.

You are obviously desperately unhappy with your life. Are you suffering "evils insufferable"? It is impossible for the rest of us to deal with your personal sense of despair unless you can articulate exactly what it is that you want to be changed and why. Not some general feeling of unhappiness but specifics. Your Declaration does not articulate anything specific.

What is it that you want?

What is it that the government is doing now that you want it to stop doing? Specifically.

What specifically is it that you want the government to do that it is not doing now?

Are you able to do this and give us specifics?

You see TR, most people in the US, even during the horrible pandemic and in the aftermath of the worst governance in our history are pretty happy. And we see in our government the potential to right wrongs.

You seem to want to chuck it all and start over, even possibly by armed insurrection. But if you can't simply and concisely articulate what it is that you believe ought to happen in terms that everyone can understand then it is no wonder that your "side" is failing to carry the political discussion.

So how about it. Show us the substance of your argument.

(I will let you get away with the horribly elitist comment you made earlier. We will write it off to zeal for your subject ;)
#15155918
Drlee wrote:@The Resister

You know I can see how you feel that way. Many people today have lost sight of what the political process should be. It goes like this:

What specifically, in the Declaration of Independence, is it with which do you think that most Americans disagree?

I will tell you that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to see the government abolished so they would not favor the radical action taken by the signatories of the Declaration. In fact, the signatories were adamant about the severity of their action:



We the people can amend the constitution to establish anything we want.

You are obviously desperately unhappy with your life. Are you suffering "evils insufferable"? It is impossible for the rest of us to deal with your personal sense of despair unless you can articulate exactly what it is that you want to be changed and why. Not some general feeling of unhappiness but specifics. Your Declaration does not articulate anything specific.

What is it that you want?

What is it that the government is doing now that you want it to stop doing? Specifically.

What specifically is it that you want the government to do that it is not doing now?

Are you able to do this and give us specifics?

You see TR, most people in the US, even during the horrible pandemic and in the aftermath of the worst governance in our history are pretty happy. And we see in our government the potential to right wrongs.

You seem to want to chuck it all and start over, even possibly by armed insurrection. But if you can't simply and concisely articulate what it is that you believe ought to happen in terms that everyone can understand then it is no wonder that your "side" is failing to carry the political discussion.

So how about it. Show us the substance of your argument.

(I will let you get away with the horribly elitist comment you made earlier. We will write it off to zeal for your subject ;)


Your criticisms are so much pious cant as to be devoid of any real meaning. Dr. Phil you ain't. I have not liked the idea of being a statutory slave, but if you like it, go with God. I started a thread in the Political Ideologies forum here that addresses the difference between an inalienable right and an unalienable Right. Don't bother saying it Chief. That criticism you're itching to post is addressed on THAT thread.

The fact that our form of government was changed through fraud and duress should be of a concern to everybody in this country. I don't dwell on it and before this board, I did not have to repeat myself this many times - even to grade school kids. Don't you think we're done with the penis measuring contest here? Your failed attempts to have me relitigate a "debate" I won a hundred posts ago means that is time to move on.

In the many posts I've done here I've answered EVERY question you asked. Step ONE is for people to read and sign The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. Until you have people who know what unalienable Rights are; what we got cheated out of; what we want, then we're basically urinating in the wind. I've been at this for years and some people are beginning to get the message. If you are satisfied with the status quo, I am not worth your time. Move on and find something that really interests you as I have NO use for personality contests.
#15155924
Ok. So you refuse to answer simple questions. Got it. Then you get puffed up and proclaim yourself the winner.

Seen it before. You were wise to have never served in the military. You would not have have done well at all. Your attitude would never serve in the company of men.

I may read your thread. I need the laughs. It will be fun to see you get angry again. Before I read it though I will offer a prediction. It has no substance and you will not like the way it turns out.

You are free to run away from this thread now. :roll:
#15168469
I got a 30 day ban on FaceBook for saying, "Christians are terrible. ;)". They cannot understand sarcasm, it seems, and it qualified as "hate speech". :?:

Banning happens to EVERYONE.
#15168556
Godstud wrote:I got a 30 day ban on FaceBook for saying, "Christians are terrible. ;)". They cannot understand sarcasm, it seems, and it qualified as "hate speech". :?:

Banning happens to EVERYONE.


It does happen to everyone. A professor did a study on "Social media bias against conservatives". The conclusion was, there is not bias. The reason there is a perception of bias is that conservatives break the social media policies far more often than anyone else. Thus, you see them getting punished more often. They cry that it's a bias, but it's not, they are just breaking the fucking rules.

Babies.
#15168641
Rightwingers also have a victim mentality and work the referee far more aggressively. They live to be aggrieved. If Twitter bans a bunch of bot accounts and woops 20% of your followers were bots it's "shadowbanning." If YouTube changes the algorithm and you get less referral views it's censorship. They love to play victims, it's an essential part of their narrative.
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
A question for our Marxists

@wat0n Thought I'd point you in the direction o[…]

I have finished my second Sinopharm shot. It kicke[…]

Not 93 trillion. Just 100,000 roubles, that will d[…]

Why aren't there more people interested in taki[…]