SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
takyon
on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:30AM
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
from the I-have-a-vision-for-SIGNAL-LOST dept.
Not too long ago both Rand and Ron Paul were pushing a copyright maximalist agenda. Today the chickens have come home to roost. Rand Paul's presidential announcement has been blocked by a copyright claim from Warner Music Group due to a clip of a song used in the announcement. Even more apropos of the (less and less as time goes by) libertarian-leaning Republican candidate, it wasn't a DMCA takedown raining on his parade, but the purely private ContentID system that Youtube put in place in order to appease the copyright cartel.
Here is a transcript of Rand Paul's announcement.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rand Paul Censored by Youtube ContentID Copyright Enforcement System
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:11PM
If one is looking at the primaries of the names bandied about for the republican nomination I would most likely support him. So in that case why not vote for the lesser of a dozen or so evils? Also it would be nice to have a major party candidate that has bold ideas and stances. This is also why I think someone like Elizabeth Warren would be a better choice for the democrats. They both offer bold ideas on how to do better and that debate hasn't happened in a long while as all of the discussion has been around the margins and with wedge issues.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:20PM
So in that case why not vote for the lesser of a dozen or so evils?
Because I'm going to vote for a candidate I actually approve of instead. They might be third party, but people who buy into the two party scam and spew forth nonsensical arguments trying to justify voting for evil are fools.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:51PM
Yes, because when there is a viable third party candidate you now get to pick from THREE people instead of TWO. Now you get to boast to everyone that you voted for the third guy, not necessarily because of his positions, but because he's NOT one of the other two, and only fools and tools would vote for one of the other two (regardless of their positions on any topic). That's called being "insightful" and "stickin' it to the Man." You're a rebel, dude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:23PM
> Yes, because when there is a viable third party candidate you now get to pick from THREE people instead of TWO.
Wow you are a dick. The underlying assumption of your snark is that all parties are the same because their identity is the fact that they are a party rather than their actual platform and historical actions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:41AM
I vote only for people I approve of, or no one at all. I'm not voting to vote against anyone, so that's a mere straw man on your part (which apparently gets you modded up). Second of all, there are more than three.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:22PM
Here I was referring to those running in the primaries, specifically those seeking the republican nomination. Of all of those seeking or thought to be seeking the republican nomination I would be most likely to support Rand Paul for the republican nomination. This does not necessarily mean I would support him for president but there would be a substantially higher chance.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:21PM
The last time there actually *was* one candidate that I actually approved of, even though she had no chance. The time before that there wasn't. I'm not sure I expect there to be one this next time.
You rarely have somebody sane who will go to tremendous effort to accomplish little to nothing. As a result most of the minor parties put up candidates who aren't much better than those of the major parties. Only two candidates will have a reasonable chance. Going by past performance, the major parties will not select their most constructive candidates to run for office...one may guess why, but its only a guess. So we're again likely to end up with a choice between two power-mad loons...and a bunch of no-hope crazies. There may be one good candidate, and I'll certainly try to find one. But I'm likely to vote for some minor party whose candidate I can't stand, but whose general platform is comparatively decent and who, if elected, won't be able to do much damage...not that they'll get elected.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:14AM
The last time[,] there actually *was* one candidate that I actually approved of, even though she had no chance
I'm wondering if that was Green Party candidate Jill Stein--the gal who, when she debated Mitt Romney in the race for governor, was described by The Boston Globe as "the only adult in the room". [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:45PM
So far, it looks like Warren doesn't even want to run, even though lots of people are screaming for her to. It does look like Bernie Sanders may run, but there's no way he'll win, he's too extreme (as far as mainstream America is concerned).
I'm pretty sure this race is going to wind up being between Hillary and Jeb. Those are the people the big media companies want, and whoever they want, we get. The whole system is rigged.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:01PM
Martin O'Malley [washingtonpost.com] seems to be as close to Warren as we are going to get. The GOP has already got their knives out for him, [washingtontimes.com] so that's a good sign.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:10PM
No, "Big Media" gives most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates, because that is who is on the minds of the electorate. You don't think they should talk about Hillary? As of now she's polling very well with potential Democrat voters, something like 60 to 70% approval for her to be their choice on the Democrat ticket. "Big Media" doesn't give a shit, they want a story. They'd love a big primary fight. They'd love for her to say something stupid and have the story spin from a molehill into a mountain. Barring any stupid gaffes, the race will be between Hillary and Jeb, not because the media want it that way, but because the majority of the people want it that way because they are the status quo candidates.
So why didn't the "big liberal media conspiracy" keep John Kerry from getting Swift Boated? Wouldn't that have been in their interest? No, they spun a BS story into a tempest because it was a STORY. It was a potential juicy, salacious scandal they could run with. When what's-his-face made his comment about the freeloading 33% (or whatever the hell it was), it was a STORY. You got a guy with the pedigree and reputation as an out-of-touch rich elitist, and now you have a video of him making a comment you'd expect to come from that rich guy on the Monopoly board. That's headline news. It might be BS, or out of context, but it makes for great copy.
(Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Friday April 10 2015, @05:39AM
Rupert Murdoch laughs at the idea of big media giving "most of their coverage to who they think are viable candidates". Rupert Murdoch gives most of the coverage to whoever Rupert Murdoch wants to win.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:38PM
Unfortunately you are likely right. Personally I think both of those candidates offer more of the same from each party. The bland, your 3c titanium tax doesn't go too far enough [youtube.com] type of politicians that will just continue down the current road of erosion of rights, just different ones based off of party.
I haven't been following the Democrat side of things much so I wasn't sure how the draft Bernie Sanders thing was going but he would be another good one to offer a bold vision and would do a lot if nominated to advance the discussion.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @09:25PM
Warren doesn't want to run now because if she won, she'd be president for eight years and then out of politics. If she doesn't run, she can be a force in the senate for a while pushing her agenda and gathering experience and support which will make her a better president in the future. Remember she's only been a senator for 2 years!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:22AM
John Quincy Adams (reputed by some as the smartest guy to ever be President) served as a Congressman after his time as Chief Executive.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:53PM
As long as they never appear together, I think it's a can't lose combination!