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This discussion has been archived.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.
The plot was designed in a light vein that somehow became varicose.
-- David Lardner
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:21PM
Hillary vs. Rand
who do you vote for?
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:31PM
Hillary has a lot of baggage. Who was the last president who actually had a record with the Federal Government? 1988 George H W Bush, maybe? Before that even?
Hillary will certainly be in the primary, but don't count on her beating some unknown state governor. People nowadays really are stupid enough to vote for someone with no record at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:45PM
People nowadays really are stupid enough to vote for someone with no record at all.
How much of a record do you need to do what your campaign donors say?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:53PM
I can't believe you took that bait.
I was going to flame that AC for asking a deliberate troll - get y'all arguing about hillary rather than Paul being hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:28PM
I'd much rather vote for someone with no record than vote for the corrupt scumbags the Republicans and Democrats put forth. Those aren't necessarily the only choices, but that is where I stand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @10:46PM
At the risk of feeding the troll, Hillary actually does have experience in the Federal government. She served in the Senate from 2000 to 2009 for the state of New York. She also served as Secretary of State for the Obama administration from 2009 to 2013 (see ref. here [wikipedia.org]). Do these not count as experience in the Federal government? Note, I didn't ask whether you actually liked the job she did in these positions, just whether they count as "federal experience". Also, why do you think that people who have been governor of a state have "no record" to run on? What experience in government do you think would be appropriate for developing a record to run on? I am genuinely curious to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:02AM
Hillary has a record as a warmonger.
Anyone who likes the failing-empire-in-its-death-throes meme and the unaccountable-and-ever-more-militarized-police meme should love Hillary.
She also has a record as a supporter of the bailouts of the too-big-to-jail bunch.
Anyone who thinks a return to feudalism|serfdom is something to look forward to should definitely vote for Hillary.
Can't wait for the other shoe to fall in the economic downturn because nothing was done to change the behavior of Wall Street? Hillary is your gal.
She should just declare her membership in the Republican Party and quit the pretense.
Hillary to retain the status quo!
.
I find it interesting that this story about Rand Paul made the front page while my submission on Michael Moore was rejected. [soylentnews.org]
The very first element of Moore's "platform" is only one charge cord for all brands of all electronic devices
Number 13 on his list is Anyone caught using their mobile device inside a movie theater will be subjected to enhanced "rectal rehydration" (thank you, CIA, for that suggestion!).
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:58PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:58PM
Whenever someone says "We ought to send troops to _____" or "We ought to bomb _____", I ask "How does that entity (thousands of miles away) pose an existential threat to you?"
Why should the USA Department of Defense get involved in this?
I further ask "What if Canada decides that they don't like the current administration here? Would they be justified in bombing Albany? ...and do you think that that would cause regime change here."
The problem with having a giant standing military is that the gov't is constantly looking for a way to use it and to justify its existence.
Having 19 aircraft carrier task forces is a huge temptation to do evil nonsense outside our 20-mile territorial limits.
...not to mention intercontinental bombers with air-to-air-refueling.
George Washington warned us about this shit over 2 centuries ago.
...and, under international law, using deadly force to go after a head of state is a crime.
In addition, killing people without due process of law is a direct violation of our founding document.
That document also defines what "war" is and by that definition we haven't been in a legitimate war since September 2, 1945.
Many will say that we have NEVER been in a legitimate war and that they were ALL avoidable.
...and that we just have historically had really crappy statesmen|leadership.
...and this doesn't even get into the fact that the majority of victims of war are children and their mothers.
(March 16 marked 47 years since the My Lai mass murder incident.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:00PM
Whenever someone says "We ought to send troops to _____" or "We ought to bomb _____", I ask "How does that entity (thousands of miles away) pose an existential threat to you?"
There are a number of examples of things that became existential threats, like fascism/communism because they were allowed to fester. Other things just shouldn't be allowed in a civilized world such as ISIS's ongoing atrocities. That doesn't mean that every war is magically a just one, most obviously aren't. But ruling out war, which is what you imply you want when you uncritically throw around terms like "warmonger", just means that you rule out war on your terms not on potential foes' terms.
Further, we could also ask the same of your particular hobby horses like a social safety net. Where's the existential need for virtually that whole affair? There might be a need for something just because enough poor people might rebel or commit more crime. Or they might be better off since that social safety net costs not only the wealth of the rich, but of the poor as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @12:04AM
fascism
As I already noted, there were thousands of miles of ocean between them and us.
The American homeland was never at risk.
You could argue that USA's imperial possessions in the Pacific were at risk.
The reason for Japan's Pearl Harbor operation was USA's naval blockage on the Moluccan Straits to strangle access to petroleum and rubber.
So, American imperialism is just fine with you but the imperialism of others is wrong?
Your flag waving is ridiculous.
communism
First, you didn't include the appropriate quotation marks around that term.
USSR and Red China were totalitarian governments with State Capitalism as the economic system.
They were fascist. Nothing "communist" about them.
The risk of the Cold War was nuclear war.
Guess who had nuclear weapons -first- AND USED THEM ON CIVILIANS.
...then continued to build them by the thousands.
Blaming a country for reacting to the demonstrated aggression of its adversary is a false argument.
Vietnam went "communist" and the dominoes didn't topple.
The Cold War was a giant sham which murdered millions of brown people--many of them children.
We were warned by Orwell about a state of permanent war (which has existed for US since December 8, 1941).
Now that the outrageous expense of keeping up this unnecessarily monstrous military has imploded our economy and the empire is obviously crumbling, all the crap we did "over there" is coming home with hypermiliterized police forces and a complete disregard for human life in the USA.
...but trying to convince a warmonger that war and warmongering is a bad thing is a waste of time.
All I'll get is more denialism.
allowed to fester
The greatest threat to the planet today is the USA.
American-style Capitalism is ruining the lives of most of the people on Earth and the millions of people left as refugees by the American war machine is unforgivable--not to mention the millions murdered in the name of American "democracy".
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:28AM
You could argue that USA's imperial possessions in the Pacific were at risk.
The US's existence was also at risk. So I could argue the above or I could argue what I actually did argue.
First, you didn't include the appropriate quotation marks around that term. USSR and Red China were totalitarian governments with State Capitalism as the economic system. They were fascist. Nothing "communist" about them.
Nonsense. There was plenty communist about them. For example, they ruthlessly destroyed capitalist structures and traditions such as private ownership of capital, personal wealth, and free markets. The vast majority of the USSR's labor and industry was organized into cooperatives and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:12AM
You still haven't described how any Axis power would cross thousands and thousands of miles of ocean and threaten the USA.
Your claim is nonsense.
In the changeover from feudal Imperial Russia to the "communist" USSR, one tiny group of owners was exchanged for another tiny group of owners.
That did NOT give the people Communism; that's CAPITALISM.
Being TOLD what you will produce, being TOLD how you will produce it, and being TOLD how the profits will be distributed is CAPITALISM.
In Communism, the workers are the core; all decisions are democratic and bottom-up.
In the USSR, the workers didn't get a say in anything.
They were still serfs/employees--NOT OWNERS.
Being TOLD that you will "join" this or that cooperative is totalitarianism.
It's definitely NOT Communism.
You have swallowed a whole bunch of Cold War bullshit.
The Shakers in North America had a democratic communal system of production with the means of production being commonly owned and they had that before there was a USA.
The Iroquois, again in North America before there was a USA, also had a democratic communal existence.
Those are examples of Communism--unlike the frauds that *called* themselves "communist".
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @04:19AM
You still haven't described how any Axis power would cross thousands and thousands of miles of ocean and threaten the USA.
I didn't describe how the US could have crossed thousands and thousands of miles to threaten the Axis powers either.
In the changeover from feudal Imperial Russia to the "communist" USSR, one tiny group of owners was exchanged for another tiny group of owners. That did NOT give the people Communism; that's CAPITALISM.
Being TOLD what you will produce, being TOLD how you will produce it, and being TOLD how the profits will be distributed is CAPITALISM.
No, as I noted before, private ownership of capital is capitalism. These other things are not capitalism. We don't have to go back and forth on this, this definition of capitalism is thoroughly established. For example [reference.com],
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
As to the rest of your post:
In Communism, the workers are the core; all decisions are democratic and bottom-up. In the USSR, the workers didn't get a say in anything. They were still serfs/employees--NOT OWNERS.
Being TOLD that you will "join" this or that cooperative is totalitarianism. It's definitely NOT Communism. You have swallowed a whole bunch of Cold War bullshit.
While I grant that it is possible for a time for communism to be democratic, there's nothing about the system that requires democracy or keeps democracy (just as it is for capitalism). After all, the usual traditional transitions to communism are by force, taking the means of production away from the upper class that used to own this stuff while bragging about how the capitalists are selling you the rope to hang themselves and whatnot. That's not conducive to democratic decision-making.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @04:47AM
Like I already said, you swallowed the Cold War bullshit.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @05:06AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:29AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 10 2015, @12:35AM
The greatest threat to the planet today is the USA.
Sounds to me then, like we ought to worry about more important things than threats then. Like global poverty, for example.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:42AM
Yes, Hillary has a record, that is the point. Politicians with records don't often get elected president because it is so easy for the media to hang them with their own words.
The president is the chief secretary of congress. His job is to see that the wishes of congress are carried out. So a person should ideally have served a few terms in congress before even being considered. When presidents are elected who haven't served with the federal government, they end up being pushed around and bullied. The military and copyright interests and wall street interests just roll right over politicians who have never had to test their philosophy against the challenge of federal office.
People elect presidents with no federal experience, and then those presidents have no backbone to deal with the pressure of federal interests. It is one of the reasons why we can't have nice things. I would support a constitutional amendment requiring presidential candidates to have served 2 terms in congress, or simply revert to congress electing the president, and end the pop star elections.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @01:41PM
Gary Johnson
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:06AM
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas has already demonstrated how to use "free markets" and "trickle down" to destroy the economy of his state.
At the national level, why go with the suspense that Johnson would bring?
Just elect a proven performer and get it over with.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:58PM
Hillary vs. Rand
who do you vote for?
Neither; I don't vote for Republicans or Democrats anymore. I consider anyone who does to be complicit in supporting a regime of illegal spies.* Fuck your false dichotomies.
*Especially complicit, I guess. Being a coward, I still pay taxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:39PM
Go ahead, throw your vote away [youtube.com] </sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @06:04PM
Go ahead, throw your vote away </sarcasm>
Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away. Might as well throw it away to someone you like...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 08 2015, @08:02PM
So, voting for a third party is considered throwing a vote away.
But, voting in a state that has elected the same party for the last 50 years with a statistical impossiblity of affecting any change, isn't?
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:31AM
Exactly. Casting an individual vote is already an idealistic gesture that doesn't do anything to affect change. Why should we be naively idealistic when deciding whether or not to vote, but then pragmatic and pessimistic when deciding how to vote? I'm not asking for strict rationality, only some semblance of consistency. Are we or are we not being idealists on election day?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:13PM
> Keep in mind that unless you live in a swing state a presidential vote is already thrown away.
Or do like my republican acquaintance living in California did - register to vote in Ohio at an inlaw's residence and then vote by mail.
And democrats say voter fraud doesn't exist! He sure proved them wrong. Dummy didn't realize voter registration rolls are public information though...
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 08 2015, @07:12PM
Some third party, almost at random.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.