submitted by Flytape to conspiracy
submitted by Flytape to conspiracy
We need an alternative to YouTube. It has way too much power, and controls too large a percentage of the video uploads to the Internet.
All the YouTube clones are shit, and YouTube is going to shit.
Someone needs to figure out how to make a distributed peer-to-peer YouTube. Vuze (formerly Azureus) is getting pretty close to that sort of thing, but I can't stand it.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but having multinational corporations in charge of our information distribution is not working in the long run. It cannot be trusted.
That would be an awesome open source project. So everybody can set up their own video hosting site. You could even interlink these individual hosts, so the content can be accessed from a central point, while the actual hosting is distributed. I'd Kickstart fund it...
I would love to see this happen. I wouldn't even mind if it required an add on for FF or Chrome to assist with the streaming.
Nobody knows why? Seems like the same reason anything gets knocked off youtube:
"RonPaul2008dotcom has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted."
When you post in this subreddit it automatically appends "and no one knows why" to the end of your submission title
if we got enough people on reddit to see this, we could get enough people to file complaints on the other "copyrighted" videos that show case the other candidates
Bad idea. DMCA takedown notices must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. You have to swear not only that the video is infringing, but that it's infringing on YOUR copyright. Filing a false claim exposes you to court costs, damages, attorney fees, and potentially criminal penalties for perjury.
/IAAL, but not your lawyer.
So you better be 100% right or well connected if you want to make high level DMCA takedown notices.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club.
Yes, I recently filed a DMCA take down because a business meeting was filmed without ourknowledge and then published on YouTube revealing quite a bit of our intellectual property (they were under an NDA too). I was thinking that finally the DMCA could be used for its intended purpose. Well youtube too took weeks to respond and then said we had insufficient evidence that we were the copyright owners!!! WTF. In the meantime we worked with our lawyers and partners to get it removed, but the official takedown process was utterly worthless for a small startup company .
IIRC for DMCA takedowns you swear on good faith that the video is infringing your copyright. With that as the standard for evidence, a challenging party has to then prove that you were acting in bad faith - that you were acting maliciously, or that you actively knew that you didn't have the proper copyright. Is that accurate?
(Not a lawyer)
Half accurate. 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) and (vi) are the sections you're talking about. Subsection (v) requires a good-faith belief that the video you seek to take down is unauthorized.*
Subsection (vi), however, requires a full-on swearing that you either own the copyright or are authorized to act on the owner's behalf. You can definitely get in trouble for that.
*Edit for context and explanation: The reason for the good-faith modifier for the infringement prong is to provide some protection to the person sending out the takedown notices. Because the question of whether or not the material is infringing is a legal question and subject to dispute, the "good faith" qualifier allows you some wiggle room just in case the court later decides that the material qualified for a fair-use exception. That sort of leeway makes sense. However, for the other prong, such leeway doesn't make sense. There is no "good faith" belief that you own a copyright. You either own it, or you don't.
so Reddit doesnt like censorship but enforces it to benefit what its members beleive in?
hey, why not be equal with censorship, if you're going to do it no? fight fire with fire
This should be our next move, protesting fire with fire.
Infringe all the videos!
We really should. We could take down a lot of videos. The thing is, I bet YouTube only listens to the big sticks.
This is the exact opposite of a good/productive idea.
It will not achieve anything except lead to an even more uninformed public. Posting more videos would be a better idea, and I'm sure someone even has backups. Alter the videos so the abide by the fair use policies on youtube, IE/ add commentary, etc... and then put them back up.
Don't just be destructive. It's a naive way to solve any problem like this.
This appears to be to be the first adult idea.
Hey, I don't like candidate paul, but at least his supporters could try and take a productive route to teaching people about their candidate.
Obama had a grassroots campaign for 2 years basically before he really ran for the presidency. It's not like people don't listen to grassroots views, the views just need to be presented in a complete package. It's marketing no matter what, and while that can sound like a really bad thing, it can also realistically paint the picture of why your candidate is so important in your opinion.
Explain to me why Ron Paul's message is not packaged at all so that people can actually get a good view of it, rather than the "VOTE RON PAUL OR YOUR ALL DOOMED" kind of rhetoric that seems to be the lifeblood of many of the louder (probably the minority honestly) Ron Paul supporters.
Proof that the government is doing all it can to sabotage Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the real choice of the people and the feds are scared. They will do anything to keep his ideas of liberty and getting government out of our lives. Ron Paul always gets thousands (3,0000-12,000) of people at his rallys. The other republican runners got three or four hundred.
I honestly believe that reddit has been infiltrated by massive amount of government astroturfers, which is where a lot of the anti- Ron Paul people are coming from. When you try to engage with one of them, they end up repeating the same thing until you have made it clear that their argument is invalid and they cannot continue repeating the same thing.
I agree and combined with this, there is a huge pro geoge bush push. "Did you know that bush saved africa....." and then huge up vote pours in. Give me a break, even the WSJ ripped his number one advisor/lover today in the eds. Sometimes free speech is a bitch.
You realize that you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, right?
The vast majority of Americans don't like Ron Paul because they think he's a crazy person.
he is portrayed as being crazy. this is true, but what has he done that is so crazy? oh, that is right, he wants to re institute the constitution.
but you haven't noticed the government and media is rampant with destroying your rights, and even covering up when it does happen.
The reason this sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory is because we have all been conditioned to think that way. By who you ask? The government and the media. We all know that it is a fact that the government has great control over the media. "If something is a conspiracy, it must have crazy associated with it as well!" That's pretty much how we have been conditioned to think, which is wrong.
Why do the vast majority of Americans think Ron Paul is a crazy person? Because they have been misinformed. I urge anyone in politics to debate Ron Paul on anything political. He will come out victorious. How I wish Ron Paul and Obama could debate. Further, how anyone can denounce Paul as crazy and then go on to support Obama, is beyond my comprehension.
Edit: And yes, mohuohu does sound like something a government astroturfer would say. The propaganda war on the internet is here and here to stay. We have to find a way to defeat it. Revolt.
It is likely that many governments, corporations and organisations send "astroturfers" onto popular media sites.
These jobs are listed pretty clearly on many company websites with varying names. Usually about "social media".
It isn't exactly suprising.
You vastly overestimate the competence of the government.
Not really. It doesn't take much competence to say "Let's hire some people to write things we agree with on the internet".
I'm not claiming it is a secret, nor that it is effective. It is a simple tactic that even small time companies attempt to do.
You make him sound like the messiah
I hate when people compare Ron Paul
with the mesiah or the 2nd coming of Jesus,
I mean..he is a nice guy and all...
but he is not Ron Paul!
He wants to stop war and legalize drugs. That's as close as we're gonna get in America today.
Talk is cheap.
If anyone asks, just point at Obama's pitifully liberticide presidency.
Yeah... but Obama came out of nowhere. Am I wrong to think Ron Paul has been saying these things for many years?
Saying and voting on = action. Of all things to question or criticize RP about, doing what he says he'll do is just about the weakest.
Promises are still cheap.
The people put a president into the office to rein the nation in, not let it got to the dogs and anyone rich enough to pay stooges peanuts to line up at washington lobbying patiently for the nation to have control over its future pried away from it while the people keep receiving assurances everything is and will be alright.
Thats IMO the biggest challenge Ron Paul faces, regardless of whatever the opposition might try to weaken him. America has grown delillusioned with these smileyfaced people promising prosperity to the nation while vultures keep depecing it and turning its previously remarkable workforce into a herd of homeless jobless just because some bankers found ways to rob both the state (bailouts, zero returns for the state or more credits/debt forgiveness) and the little man (systemic illegal foreclosures).
He's got some support, he'll still need to convince those who want solutions to real problems society is facing.
Oh, ending wars to limit budget excesses? Ok, cool.
Ending wars BUT keeping the military expenses as obscenely high as during wartime (and rising yet again over that, if new wars are engaged into)? NOT OK. This could be interpreted as a populist move.
Which would he pick, regarding that problem?
Seems like from what he says he would want to end wars and decrease the military budget. Because both don't make sense, not just ending wars for the purpose of decreasing said budget.
You know what they say about taking from one hand and putting in the other, as long as the public's attention is on the original source of complaint (war-related expenses).
Obama never publicly said he was anti-war and anti-drug war. He just had his campaign PR spin that he was to the audience.
Or like a leader the country needs. A messiah would be feeding those thousands of people with 1 fish and 1 loaf of bread (or something) thru divine miracles, not teaching people about liberty, freedom, and the true American dream.
Care to tell how exactly you got messiah from what doc58 said?
Sure, your definition of messiah is wrong. The word messiah doesn't imply fish or miracles. It merely means someone who is regarded as, or claims to be a savior, or liberator. Which is exactly how you just described him.
The lack of criticism of Ron Paul from certain supporters is what gives this impression. "He will restore liberty and freedom". Not, "He wants to shift the power in the government, but is also a backwards anti-science libertarian at the end of things, who will likely be just as no good and fucked up as every politician ever."
The word messiah just means "anointed" in Hebrew. Link
Please feel free to resume the flame war.
Right, well, the word messiah literally also can mean "A leader or savior of a particular group or cause", "an exceptional or hoped for liberator of a country or people", "a professed or accepted leader of some hope or cause", or anything else someone has chosen to define it as in the past. Sure, it literally meant "anointed" in hebrew but to claim that's its definition in a modern context is silly. It's a catch-all term for a "chosen one", when not specifically referring to some religious figure.
[deleted]
Because he won them in the primary elections.
According to Iowa, that is still debatable.
And that is the majority of the delegates handed out?
Even if paul gets the delegates from Iowa, he still has no chance of actually winning the nomination.
He could with a 3rd party, but there will not be an uprising in the lock-step GOP.
This action wasn't taken by the government, though.
Which government? The one we elect, or the one who chooses who we are allowed to elect?
the depth of your reply is goes beyond kittybear
Err...the federal government. Is any criticism of people saying stupid, untrue shit going to be met with a rabbit-hole of "conspiracies"? That's what discredits actual research into actual conspiracies that might exist, with facts and evidence to support them. It's why people can box anything distrusting of the powers at be into the neat label of "conspiracy theories", which is why they aren't taken seriously.
Why do "conspiracy theorists" love Ron Paul? He's an old-school, pretty backwards politician, with a lot of ties to a lot of evil money, and he's been pulling the same shtick for years and years. What, everyone else should be part of some grand, overarching "conspiracy" (which apparently allows you to say things with no evidence to back them up as long as you throw another conspiracy on top) but not Ron Paul?
I mean, there doesn't even need to be a conspiracy about him. This guy wants to make it legal for states to take away your rights. What the fuck.
"Is any criticism going to be met with a rabbit hole of conspiracies" - have you noticed which subreddit this was posted in?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yyyyyyyyeeeeeessssss
This guy wants to make it legal for states to take away your rights.
Source?
I only see that as an assembly of stories and anecdotes. I don't live in the US anymore and while I am divorced from the situation, I can't look away. Paul is one of the last statesman. I don't care for your wikipedia.
Ron Paul thinks it would be cool if individual states had the power to take away established rights, like the right to an abortion. So he's running for president to make that a possibility. This isn't an abstract example, either, he literally thinks Roe vs. Wade is fucked up and that abortion is one of the "most important issues of our time". Not sure how that wikipedia page (or the sources it cites) are irrelevant, they just list his political beliefs.
War is the most important issue of our time and Paul is the only one who addresses it appropriately IMO. All of that pales in comparison to all other candidates which would happily continue the endless wars under a pretext of exporting the American Dream and fighting an engineered enemy. The whole Al-CIAduh myth and global policing is just one of the many storied testaments to the ingenuity and insanity of the architects of the downfall of the USA.
Abortion if a far cry from one of the most important issues of our time. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that.
Abortion is what is commonly known as a hot-button issue, which has no relation to its level of importance.
He's an individual filled with a firm belief system that he preaches and stands behind. He speaks the truth in many occasions and when he doesn't I don't believe it is malicious, just the occasional error. He can be diplomatic, and is a good statesman.
I just happen to disagree with the vast majority of what he says, so good statesman or not, he would not be a good POTUS for me.
i dont really care about Ron Paul too much, but in his defense I have seen videos saying he is Pro-Life but he beleives its Individual States right to decide among themselves what abortion laws should dictate
and from that Im a firm beleiver that whatever he supports is his personal choice that he isn't trying to force on anyone but he does want to allow individual states to decide whats best for there own people and not a federal government dictating it
A man is allowed to have beliefs. Paul is Pro Life.
He does not, however, propose that the federal government takes control over all Pro Life / Pro Choice decisions.
Correct, he proposes that states should be given the power to strip a woman's rights from her. Or a man's. Think your kid shouldn't be forced to learn about Creationism in school by a backwards, theocratic state government? Too bad. Some states want to legalize pot? Nice! Some states want to instill mandatory 10-year-minimum sentences for pot posession? Not so nice.
The extreme nature of Paul's "states rights" views would lead to some seriously fucked up stuff. There's enough people out there who want to criminalize homosexuality, take away women's rights, fuck the poor, etc., and this would give them the power to circumvent certain federal regulations that should stay in place.
Plus, he wants fewer regulations and lower taxes for big business. Isn't that, kind of...obviously not the right thing to do?
Kittybear,
I understand the fear of state's rights, but in the long-run I truly believe state's rights is a preferable standard to a federal standard. Most importantly, you shift the balance of power back to individuals. History is essentially a continuous story of power being decentralized from the few to the many. Most of our advances in overall well-being have come from this dynamic and it is being enveloped as we speak.
Do you honestly feel any control over our countries direction anymore? I don't think it is a euphemism, but rather an ominous, foreboding and damn scary sensation that MY ABILITY TO CONTROL MY LIFE IS DIMINISHING RAPIDLY.
For many detractors of states rights, they decouple the fundamental notion of federalism whenever they hear states rights and believe instead that states rights = No federal government: not true at all.
Detractor: "Oh no, if the federal government doesn't exist, who will stop Creationism from being taught in schools?"
Reality: The Constitution requires separation of church and state.
Detractor: "Oh no, they will remove the right to abortion for women."
Reality: Abortion is a fundamental right that cannot be impinged by ANY STATE no matter how fundamentally religious they are.
Detractor: "Jim Crow laws will come back under state's rights!"
Reality: Discrimination is highly regulated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, meaning NO STATE can pass a law that discriminates based on color, creed, sex etc.
Detractor: "There will be fewer regulations and lower taxes for businesses, oh no!"
Reality: Big businesses LOVE LOVE LOVE regulations. This impedes competition because smaller entities cannot reach the economies of scale needed to lower average cost of a product because regulations are costly. Also, with a smaller federal government that doesn't oversee everything you do, lower taxes would not be bad but good. Taxes are only necessary to the extent they are providing for a common good, but it has been proven in literally every economics book ever written that government spending is always more inefficient than private spending. We prefer government spending when the incentives for private expenditures become perverse. We don't want fireman or policemen only helping out those who have paid for their services etc. But we also don't need the 100,000 lawyers on staff (and I'm a lawyer) in the federal government that oversees all the bureaucracy that I am becoming less and less influential over.
Finally, the federal government does not disappear under a state's right model. National standards based on what everyone in the country now either knows or at least should known are still upheld by the federal government. Fundamental rights such as the right to do with your body what you please (abortion), civil rights etc. Also, the federal government would still be dominant in aspects of the law concern the Constitution, i.e., 1st amendment rights (speech, religion, separation of church and state). State's rights really are just a redistribution of power back to the people the law was intended to govern in the first place.
Of course, Ron Paul would disagree with your notion that abortion and separation of church and state are federal issues. Even civil rights laws are just federal regulations killing small businesses who want to segregate.
As for regulations: you'd think that corporations would stop pushing for deregulation if it was so harmful for them.
Kittybear doesn't seem to be against state rights, he is only against states having the right to dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Seems pretty logical to me.
Being in Texas... when I hear RP's more liberal supporters talking him up so much, I always have to remind them... you know we live Texas right? I believe, for the most part, they simply jumped on the bandwagon, not realizing the far reaching consequences of being liberal in a red state under RP federal rule.
States rights at least give the opportunity to the residents to set their own terms, which are likely to be more in-line with the state population than a federal govt. mandate.
The same fragmented federal government that pulled off Iran contra, the one the smuggles cocaine in the country, and military grade weapons out. The one that is building a new NSA domestic spy complex before the laws that made it legal were even proposed?
I guess I'm a wacko.
Why do "conspiracy theorist" love Ron Paul?
Because he doesn't call us wackos, because he also believes some of the conspiracy. Please cite his connections to evil money.
This guys wants to make it legal for the states to take away your rights.
Let's assume for a moment this is true (its not true) how would the states taking away our rights be any different than the federal government taking away our rights? (which is really happening as we speak)
Now let me point out that state governments alone have recently, allowed gays to marry, legalized marijuana, legalized gold/silver as currency, allowed civil lawsuits against police who would arrest you for video taping them, and nullified the NDAA.
Where is your federal government now?
This is the epitome of ignoring the fucking point, not to mention the strawmen. Did I call you a "wacko"? No. Did I say anything about the right or wrongdoings of our country? What the fuck does Iran Contra have to do with what I just said?
As for the money - if you don't think Lockheed Martin or Verizon are fucked up super-corporations that use their money to get their way in the government, you're wrong, and they have given plenty of money to Paul (and other candidates), so have plenty of others. Just look up a list of his biggest donors, even if you limit it to the 2012 election race, there's plenty of fucked up companies dropping mad money on Paul.
Now.
Let's assume for a moment this is true (its not true) how would the states taking away our rights be any different than the federal government taking away our rights? (which is really happening as we speak)
It wouldn't be. Did I say it would be? The only point is that losing your rights in a new way is not necessarily better than losing them the old way.
Now let me point out that state governments alone have recently, allowed gays to marry And outlawed them from doing so!
legalized marijuana That has yet to happen anywhere in the US
I have things to go do so I'll stop there, but you're not making any sense. You're just repeating nice talking points, defending yourself against being called a "wacko", and putting me down for things I didn't say.
If you can't converse in a simple, back-and-forth manner, what's the point man? Are you really helping "your side"?
I don't recall putting you down one single time. Please check usernames of the posts you are answering. Or cite one example where I put you down :(
My point with Iran Contra was not a strawman, it was a perfect example of our fragmented federal government that can't even maintain control over itself. Our elected officials never authorized Iran Contra yet it happened anyway.
And I doubt our elected officials would have given the OK to fight a censorship and propaganda war against a sitting member of congress who is running for POTUS. But that doesn't mean the federal government isn't involved!
And there is my point
No? You didn't try to tear up "the federal government", which you were pushing on me as "mine"?
I never said the federal government was hot shit. All I said was that the government didn't take down these fucking stupid ron paul youtube videos, man. Your reasoning was that since the company who requested the copyright takedown was actually a factor that influenced the government, so yeah, they did. But that's stupid to say, and if these companies are just "pulling all the strings", then Ron Paul is just as much a part of that as anyone else.
Going totally batshit defensive and busting out these long-winded arguments against things no one even brought up is probably why you're so worried about being called a "wacko". It's totally, completely crazy to think that there's any one person out there who can fix everyone's problems. It's like being able to laugh at yourself. You should be able to understand and accept valid criticisms of things you support, or else you're just a fundamentalist.
The only one who is going batshit defensive here is you kitty. Every post you offer is full of anger and frustration. Allow me to offer up a friendly piece of advice.
The mark of an intelligent man is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.
Now that being said, it isn't that farfetched an idea to think the government has far reaching control of media corps. As a matter of fact its long been declassified.
Because he has found out that talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, you won't even compromise enough to see where he is coming from in his beliefs. It's like common ground doesn't exist to you, it's your way or nothing.
Haha, oh wow.
Guy, if voting could change anything, it'd be illegal.
Majority people doesnt care about ron paul. Hell some doesn't even know his name. Dont be melodramatic here. He has no chance. Im just being realistic here. Get a grip.
Says who? Corporate owned media? Go buy D&G and watch Jersey Shore, because everything is fine.
Oh fuck off. Unless he switches his party affiliation to a democratic party he will never have a chance with a republican party. The only naive one here is you and your assumption about me is way far off. No wonder.
I support Ron Paul. But this guy is right. Currently, Ron Paul has no hope.
Ron Paul gets so many people to his rallies because he has the type of voters who can go to one. Ron Paul gives a voice to the people who feel lost and underappreciated when it come politics. He drives people who have no interest in politics to give a damn. His voters are younger, so we have the luxury of being able to drop our lives for a day to hear him speak. He probably won't win. But hes sat ground. Compared to the (recent)past hes done extremely well at getting another way of thinking about Government out there to the American masses. If he doesn't win do your parts EARLY for the 2016 Rand Paul campaign for presidency after it's confirmed.
The irony is that Ron Paul is the closest thing to a true republican that has come along in AGES. Mitt Romney's actions prove he is just about the opposite a republican.
I am not sure about that though. Licoln Republicans are all for bigger federal government than democrats back in the day.
Party lines shift all the time, the democratic party is so much more center on many issues than it used to be, but it has always fluctuated.
Everybody has a chance. Even you.
At being president or the USA..... I think your wrong on that by a few billion people.
The chance is still there. Probability and chance do not mean the same thing.
Also there is not a billion people in the USA....
Right, sorry if my definition of everbody includes people that are not US citizens.
Oh okay, I misunderstood what you were saying. I assumed you live in the US. I was referring to everybody in the US(that could wet requirements), particularly each candidate. Obviously there are restrictions...
Yeah, I understand that. I am not the poster you original post responded to, please check user names. The point I was making was that you assumed the op was from the USA, but then said everybody could be president, which is just not true.
I've heard what he's had to say and I just don't agree with the man. I applaude him for actually standing behind what he says, but I happen to disagree with his stances on many things.
He's not my choice at all and I am informed as to what he says, so please, people may be trying to quiet the man, but that doesn't mean he's the overwhelming peoples choice if people really were informed.
While there may a logical fallacy in concluding that he is overwhelmingly the properly informed people's choice based solely upon the fact that he is obviously being censored and silenced, there is is also a logical fallacy in denying that he is overwhelmingly the properly informed people's choice based solely on the fact that you, as in one data point, are a properly informed person that does not choose him.
No, there isn't a logical fallacy in it at all.
I'm not just one data point, I personally know many people who are active politically, and who are informed pretty well on who ron paul is, what he stands for, and where he's policies differ from their own.
Saying the ron paul is the peoples choice but the media keeps him down is like saying kucinich is. Both these men are basically ethical politicians. It doesn't mean I have to like either of them just because they are principled, and it doesn't mean that they are the peoples choice just because I declare them so.
I was not arguing that ron paul wasn't the peoples choice, I was arguing that it is highly unlikely that he is. My statement left it open for that possibility, but just by looking at the facts, I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that he is the peoples choice.
yep this seems about right, its going to start happening more and more often. Taking what they want don't mind the rest of the junk that also happens to be copyrighted
In all honesty..fuck you youtube. I removed all my vids to elsewhere. It'll die just like myspace.
I just posted this in /r/news.. Let's get this guy some upvotes.
Done.
and done but I don't expect a positive outcome. I wonder how much longer this site will last.
Not very long, as the mods and admins solidify their control over the very popular subreddits (a million plus subscribers) people will begin to unsub and migrate to other subreddits with normal mods, then you will see strange changes happen that force new mods into these new pockets and fuckk everything up again.
Eventually people will grow tired of it and leave.
This should be posted somewhere that more people can see it.
I figured the United States had a chance with Ron Paul. Now it looks as though the people aren't bright enough to vote for him, so that chance is gone. I'm preparing for the revolution, which is coming.
Why would revolution come if the people aren't even smart enough to vote for him?
You cannot say that people are stupid just because they won't vote for Ron Paul.
It is likely that the same way you and others have read about him and what he's done, and read up on his policy and decided to like him, that there are realistically just as many people who decided that they disagree.
There are many informed people out there, and there are many uninformed people, but don't just say that everyone is stupid because they don't like your candidate because you come off as thick skulled.
Can't the same thing be done for any Obama channels and Romney channels?
I recommend that everyone read Against Intellectual Monopoly. As you might expect from its title, you can download it as a free, but the book can also be purchased if you prefer a hard copy.
More and more censory. They will do whatever they can to make sure the message of liberty does mot prevail.
I agree that deleting the videos is bullshit.
With that said, Ron Paul is a chode.
So Google redefined the Wadsworth constant to 100% for Ron Paul, huh?
Unofficial channels like this get closed all the time, it's not a conspiracy.
I just went to youtube.com/ronapaul and it's all still up there, what are you talking about?
one clip getting too much publicity they didnt like recently? perhaps the false flag warning....
Oh wow! I forgot all about that one!
Not sure if true but nice connection.
Fuck, you mean this one that still exists in multiple forms all over the internet, that can be found simply by googling "ron paul false flag"?
Ya know, even if by a glimmer of hope we are able to write Ron Paul in and he gets elected. I guarantee he won't be in office ling...if you know what i am saying. It will be another set-up like how they got rid of JFK.
probably because everything anybody in the establishment has any control over at all is on overdrive eliminating any evidence of ron paul's existence in the universe
because he is a fucking nut and all his fans are nuts and they were probably talking about insane policies and they figured fuck it this isn't going anywhere anyways y u mad tho
It's an outrage! Oh wait, what? A Presidential candidate ripping off copyrighted materials and then complaining that he has been ripped off?
It's an outrage.
Are you suggesting that every campaign video we have seen on TV or youtube of public servants hasn't been compiled out of clips of video that is copyrighted material?
So if CNBC makes a video of me, I can't use that video on my youtube page?
You're a god damned shill sir! A god damned dirty shill.
nothing would change if people would see ron paul vids. nothing would change if they would vote for ron, nothing would change if ron would be elected, noting will ever change.
Wait, WTF? This is unbelievable! Ron Paul is still running?!
EDIT : UPDATE - CNBC has filed copyright claims, but only against this Ron Paul channel, forget about the millions of CNBC videos on youtube, these pro-ron paul videos must go!
Claims filed by
CNBC LLC
Nina Gabriel this woman appears to be some sort of turncoat. I'm not sure what's going on with her. http://www.reddit.com/r/RonPaulCensored/comments/t19jl/youtube_ronpaul2008dotcom_account_closed_due_to/
Video of Nina Gabriel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnRNItxSy4
Spread this video! Spread the news!
Simple logic would tell even the biggest moron alive that deleting this channel in the middle of someone's presidential campaign is a gross violation of common ethics.
If youtube needed to trim the fat of old videos there are about 100,000 "leave britany alone!" Spoof videos that nobody ever watches any more.
This is disgusting! This is an outrage!
How can a news organization file copyright claims? Wouldn't that put almost every single historic covering of major events under copyright?
Yes it would.
This is why cispa and acta and pipa and all those "tools" are dangerous. They have always, and will always be selectively used to sway public opinion or to punish those who buck authority.
I really hate that term: "tools." They see all rights-grabs as "tools."
I agree.
No. They can only claim copyright for stuff they produced.
Same way you can claim copyright on the book about dragons written by you, not on dragons in general.
Anyone can claim copyright for whatever they wish. It's then up to the user who posted the video to challenge the invalid claim. That's Youtube's model, at least.
I own the copyright on "dragons".
Now pay my ass.
I shall pay you in poop.
Back and forth forever
All of this content should be covered under the Fair Use commentary clause, or possibly news reporting.
However, if the clips were unaltered, then CNBC probably wins out, but INAL. Unfortunately, youtube doesn't seem to have any protocol to protect Fair Use whatsoever.
Tough break. Screw CNBC and screw the Copyright Cartel.
Edit: I should mention that it's probably time for everyone to start migrating away from Youtube anyways. Hopefully the admins of that channel have the videos backed up and can upload them elsewhere.
And all this after CNBC gave Ron Paul the chance to show up before a broad TV audience as the real Republican hope of a candidate he truly is.
I sense that some sort of establishment political pressure fell upon the CNBC headquarters.
I used to believe in ron paul, then I took a hard listen at his stance on evolution
what has obama done for the pro-evolution people? what have they promised? what could they do?
the the reverse:
what has RP done for the pro-creation people? ...
Not sure what you're getting at. His stance is that it's plausible but lacks evidence. He says the same thing about creationism. So please tell us about this "hard listen".
Because his stance on evolution is so much more important than, say, his stance on WAR.
You should get your priorities straight.
Forget that we are still continuing to engage in these pointless wars, the economy has tanked and unemployment is at its highest in years, Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution! Right, because that is the utmost concern right now with American politics.
Way to throw the baby out with the bathwater there, buddy.
Because that's the single one thing that defines the character of a person?
Denial of evolution with current knowledge tells us a huge deal about someone's character. Evolution IS the best explanation by which life changes and diversity is created. To look at the overwhelming truth, particularly in this matter, and than be able to claim that your esoteric knowledge trumps reality.
This is why it is a problem.
I really think his views on civil liberties is more important than his stance on evolution. Out of them all, consider the reality that they are all alike with their christian views, but Ron Paul differs with his views on wars, civil liberties, and government impact.
So these other politicians that are a-ok with starting wars, expanding corporate interests to the detriment of the public, and in general being psychopaths have a better grip on reality than Ron Paul? OK buddy.
where has he denied evolution? he has only ever said that evolution isn't 100% complete and that we can't say many things about it with 100% certainty. if you was a 6000 year moron, then you would have a point, but he's not.
He doesn't deny it. He says it lacks enough evidence. He says the same thing about creationism. Of course he's going to be lean towards creationism though, he's a Christian.
He has said he believes in a creationism that doesn't exclude evolution, unlike christian extremists who believe in static creationism.
Would love to see a source of him saying this just to have even more ammo against haters.
Hold up. If someone denounces evolution then I've heard all I need to hear. That person may have some great ideas, but I can't stand behind someone who considers creationism to be more valid than evolution.
To answer your question, YES, sometimes all it takes is one thing to define the character of a person.
edit: I don't care if I get downvoted into oblivion. I refuse to blindly follow someone by only focusing on their positive characteristics and ignoring the bad ones. If that makes me a bad person, then fuck it. I'll be a bad person before I'm a mindless sheep.
Even if it's just part of their personal religious view, and isn't at all part of what they're espousing or speaking about?
And you shouldn't blindly follow anyone, regardless if you can only find positive characteristics.
So, on that point, he's the same as every other candidate. Therefore, you can't hold it against him.
You don't have to listen that hard to hear him say evolution doesn't exclude divine intervention, and vice-versa. You know, the same thing Darwin himself said.
You don't have to listen that hard to hear him say whatever his personal beliefs are they can't and won't interfere in his politics and political principles.
Everyone is free to believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose it on others, which he has never done and never will.
Where's the info on Nina Gabriel that connects her to this?
Mmmm look in /r/ronpaulcensored
Ill be back with an update and link.
http://www.reddit.com/r/RonPaulCensored/comments/t19jl/youtube_ronpaul2008dotcom_account_closed_due_to/
This is a link to one of the videos that were deleted.....Nina Gabriels name is listed along with CNBC. Thats all there is so far that "connects" her to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW6NgyzcF0o
Posted in /r/news in an attempt to get more coverage: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/t1p6y/youtube_deletes_the_entire_ronpaul2008_channel/
Regarding Nina Grabiel, It could be that they just uploaded some of her home made videos and she got annoyed because they got the video views for them instead of her channel getting exposure. She probably didn't realize youtube would zap the whole channel if she complained.
I didn't even realize he was still running.
Wholly shit. This just proves how dangerous he is to the establishment. Everything must go! I'm not a supporter, but I like his style. Good ideas + $$ = problems for status quo.