SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(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_