So, let me get this strait. Corrupt companies whant to take over the net to gain more money, and then we the people must give a new label to the First Amendment? Did this used to be an issue before the economy dissapeared?
As I understand it the problem that net neutrality is meant to solve is business controlling bandwidth and thus controlling the flow of information to the public making it possible to impose their political agendas on the people. Now supposedly net neutrality is supposed to enable the government to enforce fair bandwidth for everyone without imposing new regulations. But here is the thing should a political machine like our government determine what is fair and what is not?
net neutrality is a joke. its an excuse for government to get involved, and take more control. service providers don't use walls , (and for good reason) if comcast blocks youtube, they know we can switch to charter. they have competition that stops them from doing such.
the Internet has been a free frontier. and it has worked up till this day. but what do you know "here comes the FCC"
Many people missing the point here. Its very unlikely ISPs will block sites for consumers, the danger is they will charge more for *creators* unless they pay extra fee's. So, only companies they have done deals with get in the "fast lane", and meanwhile independant creators, like askaninja get throttled down unless they can afford it. The end users wont pay directly, but they will suffer if the internet lose's the net nutrality.
@twdarkflame Thats the whole fad with google apps, so that people can 'get on board' and without regulation the big players will sqeeze the smaller players out of the market place.
Companies who offer web space to users will be squeezed out by greedy corporations. Google Apps is just the first step to try to prevent the individual from being able to create their own website without big corporations dictating the terms.
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock.
@Gracelandification Thats complete crap and backwards. NN is and has always been in place. Its what allowed for freedom of speech and fair competition on the internet. Removing it would mean special interests groups could lobby ISPs and discriminate against information by buying up bandwidth.
Do you think drivers should be able to pay more money in order to drive faster than others? Well removing NN would established such a precedent online meaning you wont have the same free access to info.
@nnndddnnnddd But that's just the thing. You can drive 10 MPH in a parking lot, or 20 MPH in a school zone, or 40 MPH in city streets, or 110 MPH on the highway. "One size fits all" isn't necessarily the best thing. That aside, in this country called the USA, when you own property, it is yours to do with as you please. Do you own this property? Does your uncle Mort? Does some meddling Washington bureaucrat? No, the owners are the ISPs. They paid for the equipment, they own it.
@OutlawTomFantastic still total BS... and incredibly naive. you can make that arguemanent, but it is absolute fact that stripping NN would result in massive corporate abuse.
its always been neutral, and always should be. if the web was never neutral, non of the good that came from it would have occurred.
go ahead and try to make a name for yourself on radio and tv airwaves (owned entirely by a handleful of corp). try expressing an idea that go against the "owners" of the internet... wont last.
@nnndddnnnddd No, there has never been any Internet enforcement in place for anything, including NN, which is why it has evolved so fast. And no, corporate abuse would not occur because businesses are responsive to the wants and needs of their customers. That's the way free market competition works. "its always been neutral, and always should be" How about you say this instead, it would make you sound more relevant: "We've always ridden our horse buggies and we always will!"
@OutlawTomFantastic 'Business are responsive...' blah blah rosy bullshit. Again, you put too much faith in to businesses. I dont put as much faith in neither businesses or the government. More importantly you dont know anything about this bill than what rush limbaugh and glen beck have fed you. Before you continue ask yourself why this bill is even part of the national conversation when more than 4 years ago (when it was put forth under Bush) this was not on any ones mind.
@ThunderAppeal It doesn't have to be rosy, just realistic. In free markets, businesses are subject to the whims of their customers. Customers vote every second with their wallets. When businesses stop satisfying what their customers want, their customers walk away.
The free market is what regulates the internet providers because the free market is you the people not the FCC! If you don't like that Internet Service provider you choose not to do business with them. It is democracy in its purest form. The big corporations are the ones who love regulation because it eliminates competition. NET NEUTRALITY IS BULLSHIT!!!
Once the government has control (the same government that water-boards people) the internet will no longer be neutral. A better way to think of so called net neutrality laws is as anti-neutrality policies that will eventually turn the internet over to government special interest groups (you know the ppl that pay off govt officials).
@dustinto - Sure, Skype banned from lots of mobile phones, and Torrents being throttled by many ISPs. They get away with it because "torrents are for pirates!!" (ignoring shows like PioneerOne). But its still a clear example.
Net Nutrality simply states that every publisher is treated the same in terms of priority - thats it. Its not about "controll" of the internet, its simply ensuring free competition. Why not protest real problems like the attempts for a internet "kill switch" instead?
@twdarkflame That is not a proper example at all, ISPs have a right to block content how they see fit and the net neautrality bill has nothing to do with that.
I suspect the net neutrality supporters don't fully understand how the Internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It can survive a nuclear attack, so no, Comcast can not get monopoly control and shut out Netflix or whatever crazy theory is being offered up here. This is a solution looking for a problem. The Internet is working great, no one is complaining about anything and the hardware continues to evolve incredibly. WHY MESS WITH THAT?
The reason the Internet is so resilient is because it was designed around the idea of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is another way of saying the end-to-end principle, that all of the decision making of the Internet should be with the end-users, rather than in the middle with ISPs. End-users have been given substantial power to innovate because of the end-to-end principle, which is why we see Netflix, or BitTorrent, or YouTube. It's the ISPs who want to change things.
@derpitydoodaa If the Internet was "designed" around the idea of Net Neutrality, why do we need the government to get involved? It was already designed in. The fact is, NN will curb future innovation by Internet hardware makers. The Internet is one of the few things working well these days. I've seen no actual examples of ISPs doing anything to disrupt the customer experience. They want happy customers after all. Seen lots of scaremongering "Well what if they do this or do that?"
Telecom companies may not be discriminating currently but they have strong incentives to violate the end-to-end principle. Communications technologies are converging and telecom companies face the loss of significant cable TV and phone revenue to things like Netflix and Skype. Telecommunications is not a competitive market. The big players like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want want to use their control of the lines to extract profit from innovative Internet companies.
@derpitydoodaa The only people claiming ISPs have strong incentives to screw their customers are people who don't understand free markets and the tenuous relationship between customers and businesses. Customers can and will jettison a business if they are not happy with the service, hence why so far (with no NN laws) the Internet has been evolving remarkably. All we need to do is not get stupid and let the government get its slimy nose in the door. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T "FIX" IT.
@OutlawTomFantastic How will NN 'curb innovation by future hardware makers'? Theres the strawman of the century argument. As if the hardware makers dont have enough incentive right now to innovate? If as you say the 'internet is fine as it is.' how will NN change that in your opinion? Try not to repeat what Glenn Beck said, if you do you will be no better than the leftist scum of 2 years ago who parroted the talking points of msnbc.
@ThunderAppeal Right now the remarkable hardware that comprises the Internet has evolved because companies have had the freedom to experiment with different profit models. If you allow the government in there they will harm the ability to make profits, and without profits there is no incentive to continue evolving hardware. We've seen it happen with car companies where they introduce supposedly harmless regulations that end up making it impossible for new companies to enter the marketplace.
@OutlawTomFantastic Do you know how the internet came to be? Who the players were who were involved in creating the internet? I own an American car and am quite happy with it, but youre going to tell me that a Chevrolet V8 from 30 years ago is more fuel efficient and makes more horsepower and torque than a brand new GM corporate block with fuel injection and engine management systems? FI was something the American auto manufacturers were vehemently against for years after the foreign makes.
@ThunderAppeal The modern Internet (not the ancient Arpanet), which was started in the early 90s, was built and financed by private companies spread out all over the United States and the world. They are the ones that brought it up to the incredible speeds we see today. One of the reasons it thrived was because there were no regulations on anything. One of the reasons Arpanet did nothing for 20 years was because the government regulated how many new sites could connect each year. Typical.
@OutlawTomFantastic The government regulated it to the extent necessary for national security. Once a new technology came along or an improvement on the old one the internet was 'released to the public. Besides that the technology of the day could not be utilized for a seamless transition and yes it was private industry that built the microchip it was however with government contracts that the technology was funded. The telcos oppose NN because they've over extended themselves with the 'new f
@OutlawTomFantastic the new 'faster' internet. The actual outrageous cost it takes to build the 'fiber' networks we see today could not possibly be recouped with the fees that they charge the average consumer. But the consumer doesnt give a shit everyone fucking needs 1gb/sc internet access.
So the scheme the telcos cooked up was that in addition to the regular fees they charge they want to also charge network access fees. NN enforces freedom of speech.
@ThunderAppeal Well then if they spent a butt-load of money to implement ultra-fast Internet, who are you to stand in their way of making a profit? I thought you would be thankful for what they've done, that they offered it to us voluntarily (they didn't force anyone to be their customers) and as the owners of the business and of that equipment they have every right to experiment with whatever business models they want to try out. It's called the free market. That's why it is so great.
@OutlawTomFantastic I couldnt give a half a shit about how much money they spent on 'ultrafast' internet. They can spend it to the point where they can go bankrupt for all I care, which they nearly have. The problem I have is the possibility that they want to ream the customer on the back end. The same free market you talk about which is so great (and I wont deny that) is the same market that requires food manufacturers to put ingredient on their labels. Food companies do not do so willingly.
@ThunderAppeal ??? So in your world, the businesses are supposed to shell out billions of dollars and then just go away and give you free stuff. Wow, what color is the sky in your world exactly? It always puzzles me when someone is talking about how great free markets are, then someone points out that it isn't truly a free market because the government is currently screwing it up with regulations. Yes, we are all aware that the government likes to ruin a good thing. And your point is...?
@OutlawTomFantastic Now youre being a fucking clown. Youre doing the same bullshit that the leftists do when someone said something that is beyond comprehension. They fall back on a default argument that doesnt tie in to the original statement. You've completely disregarded my analogy about ingredients on food and what I pointed out about companies over extending themselves financially. You live in an imaginary world where there are no regulations at all whatsoever. There is no such world.
@OutlawTomFantastic There is a bigger problem that is growing with regards to the internet, something I'm sure you are completely ignoring. The states are now pushing harder to start collecting sales tax on internet transactions. Mainly because the mom and pop stores that are too slow and/or dumb to be smart enough to put up a website to capitalize on the internet are being driven out of business. Oh, and walmart needs to be able to force people to buy from them because they've also overe
@ThunderAppeal Now you've moved on to making no sense whatsoever. Please, do tell how Walmart could possibly force someone to buy from them. I'd love to hear this. What, do they stand outside with cattle prods and herd customers into their doors? Do they duct-tape items into customers' hands so that they are forced to leave with their products?
@OutlawTomFantastic BTW, the phone companies had oh so reluctantly spent money on new technology when the internet was 'unrestricted' from the 'old arpanet'. There were BBSs prior to that which given enough time probably would have come to the same conclusion as phone companies. Additionally the phone companies have done their damnest to prevent smaller telcos to thrive and offer their own solutions to internet connectivity.
@OutlawTomFantastic Youre not an American, I dont really care what you have to say. This does not concern you because in your nation you have no document that secures your freedom of speech.
@OutlawTomFantastic The internet is resilent,but your ISP connection is not.They can block what they like. That said, its not about "blocking" its about slowing down and charging more for the content creators.
Its unlikely anything will be blocked, but ISPs do want to charge content creators more ontop of the bandwidth they already pay for. The idea is, say, HULU gets a "fast lane" while Blip.tv for example, gets a slow one.ISPs have falsly claimed that companies like youtube get a "free ride".
@twdarkflame "The idea" as you explain above doesn't sound like an idea that would fly in the free markets. People don't want their ISPs slowing down sites, and will flee from any ISP that attempts to do such a block-headed move. From all the hay people have been making about this issue here, I still see zero reason to allow the government to put its very large and obstructive camel's nose under the tent.
@OutlawTomFantastic btw, you have a completely incorrect idea of what NN is. its not goiv regulation, its gov assurance that it will remain open. im done. you have nothing to offer so try to resist responding.
I got my internet bill lower by threatening to leave for another company if they didn't give me the new customer price for 12 months. I was paying 40 a month from ATT and got it lowered to 20 a month for the same elite package. There is another company in my area that offers 20 a month.
I'll leave ATT if there's no penalty always but sure as shit I'm leaving when the year is over.
Spread the word, I'm sure it would work with comcast too. Fight back.
@MoJoSB Yeah, you think going from one ISP to another will solve the problem? How about when there are only 3 or 2 ISP's left who operate under the facade that they are 'competing with one another' (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). So that they can make sure to keep the government happy enough not to have monopoly hearings against them. How about when the next ISP while they are 'independent' has to charge you 3 times the price of the bigger ISP because the cost of business and technology goes up?
I'm sorry...when did a company "put up a wall" and stop users from viewing content on the Internet? Oh, THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED? Ah. That's what I thought. *eyeroll*
@WideWorldOfWisdom Thats what this video is about. Thats what they could do in the future if net neutrality doesn't happen. Because that "wall" will be huge fees that most normal people couldn't pay. Theres already some talk by them about making us pay just to see facebook or youtube.
@gvcdkg wait a minute. Maybe I missed something. I thought companies were in business to make as much money as possible. How is charging a price that "most" people couldn't pay going to do anything but hurt revenues? What would be the point? That's like saying Coca-Cola has a secret formula that no one can replicate. So they're going to exploit that and charge "huge fees that most normal people couldn't pay" for their special one-of-a-kind drink. Why the hell would they do that?
@gvcdkg So should I be afraid of a freaking meteor falling though my house and killing me? Just saying. Maybe we should all wear helmets. Or we should live underground because IT COULD happen you know.
If you want the government to take care of everything for you just donate money to your local representative and ask them to wipe your butt for you too... Have you ever known a politician to do something good for the public?
The vehicles for the privatization of the public internet are:
P.O.W.D.E.R. The "Protocol for Web Description Resurces"
and P.I.C.S. "Platform for Internet Content Selection"
Both were developed under the impetus of stopping child pornography.
It is the protocol for Labeling.Content publishers are not the only entities which can label their own content. anyone can and the labeling will be maintained on 3rd party databases content publishers have no say in how their content gets labeled.
A hilarious take on a very serious issue that not too many people know about when this video was created. The line: "Not while we have this big wall that is built out of the shredded First Amendment.", pretty much sums up what can potentially happen.
this is old, but its still a relevant topic. Keep fighting for net neutrality in -all- its forms. Not just what a few certain big companies tell ya (which leaves some opportunies for them to make money on a ignorant citizen). ;D
Boycott Google and Verizon NOW. The people of the World own the Internet not Google or Verizon. Power to the People !! Vive le revolution !! Vive Net Neutrality.
Here's what this whole argument boils down to- ultimately, 'control' of the internet, for lack of a better term, is inevitably going to be relegated to one of two entities- the corporation, or the government. It's a lesser of two evils scenario, I know, so who do we trust more, with this most precious of information resources?
As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)
Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.)
If your internet service provider does that, you find another ISP. You do not run to the government for help because only by force (government regulation) can the 1st amendment be shredded. A company operating on mutual agreement can never pose a threat to the 1st amendment
Most ISPs will not regulate the internet since most costumers want to have access to all content
Net neutrality is the biggest threat towards internet freedom and freedom in general
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ThorkilKowalski are you fucking dumb look up net neutrality they dont break the 1st amendment of the internet they bend it and it isnt typical fascist propaganda you typical fuck brain moron
@JuicyJwtfwhoo Here's an idea, how about when you're calling someone stupid, you try to use language that makes you seem intelligent, and not just mindlessly spew swear words that makes people think you lack brain cells.
@JuicyJwtfwhoo I don't mean to critique your, uh, critique method- Yeah I do. Less emotion, more logic. "You fuck brain moron?" Not a convincing argument.
@theundeadsoulss Well, yeah, and it's a medium of communication, like the internet, except that the problem, net neutrality, is SOMETHING REAL, IN CONGRESS AND SERIOUS. Depending on how that issue swings it will give companies unsupervised power to limit access to parts of the web's content. But then again, who gives a shit? After all, it's just youtube, right?
@duraiel ¬_¬ it was directed at ur comment about the way that guy expressed his views (through swearing) there's no need to put a fully intellectual answer on a site like this. Ok? -_-
@ThorkilKowalski You seem to forget that big businesses don't care about you. They will do whatever they think is necissary to take more money from you. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the Government regulating the Internet. It is all about the government regulating what the companies do. If a big company doesn't like a certain site, or some content that disagrees with anything they say, they can make you pay more, or make that site slower. THIS is what Net Neutrality prevents.
The only entity who can TAKE money from me is by definition the government. All companies must get my money by mutual voluntary consent.
Just like the relationship between me and my ISP is by MUTUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENT. That is why I do not need protection from my ISP. Saying I do, implies that I need protection from myself which is the shortest way to fascism.
Doesn't the same argument apply to the sale of cocaine? The purchaser has a voluntary relationship with the dealer, so it must be all good, right? what about products made with lead based paint? payday loans with interest rates high enough that they can never be paid off (some of these are legal, but there is a cap on interest rates, at least in Canada)? mortgages designed to fail? call me fascist for wanting to stop those things.
2: So you do, in fact support cocaine decriminalization as well as market deregulation to allow the sale of toys covered in lead based paint to children. I think the fascists are looking pretty good right now.
Yes to the decriminalization of cocaine and other drugs. I do however think that the PUBLIC use of these substances can be regulated - preferably by municipalities or states.
In children toys, no. It only makes sense to talk about mutual voluntary consent if for grown-ups since children are not expected to have the same kind of reasoning as adults. Just like, I don't think children should be allowed to buy heroin.
@ThorkilKowalski both valid points, although the first could be hotly contended. The thing that I think makes the difference here is that a few telecom companies have a monopoly that is essentially unbreakable, because the infrastructure necessary is too expensive for a young company to deal with. The end result of this is that the market cannot self regulate, which is why I think that government regulation is, in fact necessary.
I apologize for the immature last sentence of my previous comment
@ThorkilKowalski true, but it is still a powerful monopoly, and if it was allowed to regulate access, it would become very hard for new companies to emerge. And yes, none of this is currently happening, (aside from googlezon, which is by no means a worst case scenario), this movement is entirely preventative.
I got over the Juggernaut spoof a long time ago. But for the life of me this is one of those internet gems that never loses it's appeal to me. Keep 'em coming dude. Shit is funny as hell bro....
Seriously though your ISP "Internet Service Provider" most likely have already signed on with this "block the internet plan". Google YouTube and Yahoo definitely have.
Everyone prank call or txt this whore! 786 908-5537 I seriously hate this bitch.
MrTehepitome 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ninja Brothers and Sisters Rise up and join us!
NinjApocalypse . net
theNinjApocalypse 1 month ago
So, let me get this strait. Corrupt companies whant to take over the net to gain more money, and then we the people must give a new label to the First Amendment? Did this used to be an issue before the economy dissapeared?
VoltOptConstruct 2 months ago
As I understand it the problem that net neutrality is meant to solve is business controlling bandwidth and thus controlling the flow of information to the public making it possible to impose their political agendas on the people. Now supposedly net neutrality is supposed to enable the government to enforce fair bandwidth for everyone without imposing new regulations. But here is the thing should a political machine like our government determine what is fair and what is not?
Sikraj 5 months ago
@Sikraj I get the point, but I'd rather it be our government then leaving it up to big corporations like Time Warner and AT&T to decide
IBelieveinDayDreams 4 months ago
give us some fried cheese XDDD
Konan2539 5 months ago
wtf just i just watch? keya keya keya
crazymonkey44444 6 months ago in playlist Ask A Ninja
I have often said to myself. Self,,, maybe you should ask a ninja. Now I can.
zepproxx 6 months ago
net neutrality is a joke. its an excuse for government to get involved, and take more control. service providers don't use walls , (and for good reason) if comcast blocks youtube, they know we can switch to charter. they have competition that stops them from doing such.
the Internet has been a free frontier. and it has worked up till this day. but what do you know "here comes the FCC"
techfighterminal 6 months ago
a ninja trying to save the internet what the fuck will they think of next.
991haku 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
197 people are gay samurai!!!
powerup3005 7 months ago
Comment removed
powerup3005 7 months ago
Comment removed
powerup3005 7 months ago
Did anyone get innuendo about the girl at hotdog on a stick, making lemonade?
Gearen777 9 months ago
@Gearen777 Huh what? I was watching the ninja explaining something about net neutrality and things that I like and funny hats.
N0hN4me 6 months ago
196 people didn't get any fried cheese.
MacThompsonBrown 9 months ago
1,091,281 views hmmmm
Daryn031 9 months ago
a big wall made out of the shredded first amendment.
that was good
Aro2220 9 months ago 15
Some anger up in here imo, this vid is pro! More posts about vid, less about lolpolitics
oopomopoo 10 months ago
196 people hate Net Neutrality.....fags!!!!
link000000 10 months ago
Many people missing the point here. Its very unlikely ISPs will block sites for consumers, the danger is they will charge more for *creators* unless they pay extra fee's. So, only companies they have done deals with get in the "fast lane", and meanwhile independant creators, like askaninja get throttled down unless they can afford it. The end users wont pay directly, but they will suffer if the internet lose's the net nutrality.
twdarkflame 10 months ago
@twdarkflame Thats the whole fad with google apps, so that people can 'get on board' and without regulation the big players will sqeeze the smaller players out of the market place.
Companies who offer web space to users will be squeezed out by greedy corporations. Google Apps is just the first step to try to prevent the individual from being able to create their own website without big corporations dictating the terms.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
Obama’s “FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn Free Internet a Civil Right for Every Nappy-Headed Child” watch?v=JWETGCggzcE She also voted for Net Neutrality,which could ultimately censor the internet impeding our first amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. watch?v=lGplqSh8fYU
.
Her dad is James Clyburn, former house majority WHIP. She’s probably aware our unfunded liabilities are $115 Trillion per debt clock.
Gracelandification 1 year ago
@Gracelandification Thats complete crap and backwards. NN is and has always been in place. Its what allowed for freedom of speech and fair competition on the internet. Removing it would mean special interests groups could lobby ISPs and discriminate against information by buying up bandwidth.
Do you think drivers should be able to pay more money in order to drive faster than others? Well removing NN would established such a precedent online meaning you wont have the same free access to info.
nnndddnnnddd 1 year ago
@nnndddnnnddd But that's just the thing. You can drive 10 MPH in a parking lot, or 20 MPH in a school zone, or 40 MPH in city streets, or 110 MPH on the highway. "One size fits all" isn't necessarily the best thing. That aside, in this country called the USA, when you own property, it is yours to do with as you please. Do you own this property? Does your uncle Mort? Does some meddling Washington bureaucrat? No, the owners are the ISPs. They paid for the equipment, they own it.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic still total BS... and incredibly naive. you can make that arguemanent, but it is absolute fact that stripping NN would result in massive corporate abuse.
its always been neutral, and always should be. if the web was never neutral, non of the good that came from it would have occurred.
go ahead and try to make a name for yourself on radio and tv airwaves (owned entirely by a handleful of corp). try expressing an idea that go against the "owners" of the internet... wont last.
nnndddnnnddd 10 months ago
@nnndddnnnddd No, there has never been any Internet enforcement in place for anything, including NN, which is why it has evolved so fast. And no, corporate abuse would not occur because businesses are responsive to the wants and needs of their customers. That's the way free market competition works. "its always been neutral, and always should be" How about you say this instead, it would make you sound more relevant: "We've always ridden our horse buggies and we always will!"
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic 'Business are responsive...' blah blah rosy bullshit. Again, you put too much faith in to businesses. I dont put as much faith in neither businesses or the government. More importantly you dont know anything about this bill than what rush limbaugh and glen beck have fed you. Before you continue ask yourself why this bill is even part of the national conversation when more than 4 years ago (when it was put forth under Bush) this was not on any ones mind.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@ThunderAppeal It doesn't have to be rosy, just realistic. In free markets, businesses are subject to the whims of their customers. Customers vote every second with their wallets. When businesses stop satisfying what their customers want, their customers walk away.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whatever you need bbw help you naneedj.info
siththee 1 year ago
have you noticed how anti-neutrality messages are just copy&pastes from the same guys? you guys are desperate to make noise uh?
DanyAlejandro 1 year ago
The free market is what regulates the internet providers because the free market is you the people not the FCC! If you don't like that Internet Service provider you choose not to do business with them. It is democracy in its purest form. The big corporations are the ones who love regulation because it eliminates competition. NET NEUTRALITY IS BULLSHIT!!!
conanthebarbarian333 1 year ago
Give me ONE example of this actually happening!
Once the government has control (the same government that water-boards people) the internet will no longer be neutral. A better way to think of so called net neutrality laws is as anti-neutrality policies that will eventually turn the internet over to government special interest groups (you know the ppl that pay off govt officials).
dustinto 1 year ago
@dustinto - Sure, Skype banned from lots of mobile phones, and Torrents being throttled by many ISPs. They get away with it because "torrents are for pirates!!" (ignoring shows like PioneerOne). But its still a clear example.
Net Nutrality simply states that every publisher is treated the same in terms of priority - thats it. Its not about "controll" of the internet, its simply ensuring free competition. Why not protest real problems like the attempts for a internet "kill switch" instead?
twdarkflame 10 months ago
@twdarkflame That is not a proper example at all, ISPs have a right to block content how they see fit and the net neautrality bill has nothing to do with that.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
I suspect the net neutrality supporters don't fully understand how the Internet works in terms of redundancy and immunity to monopoly control. It's a distributed network. It can survive a nuclear attack, so no, Comcast can not get monopoly control and shut out Netflix or whatever crazy theory is being offered up here. This is a solution looking for a problem. The Internet is working great, no one is complaining about anything and the hardware continues to evolve incredibly. WHY MESS WITH THAT?
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic
The reason the Internet is so resilient is because it was designed around the idea of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is another way of saying the end-to-end principle, that all of the decision making of the Internet should be with the end-users, rather than in the middle with ISPs. End-users have been given substantial power to innovate because of the end-to-end principle, which is why we see Netflix, or BitTorrent, or YouTube. It's the ISPs who want to change things.
derpitydoodaa 1 year ago 8
@derpitydoodaa If the Internet was "designed" around the idea of Net Neutrality, why do we need the government to get involved? It was already designed in. The fact is, NN will curb future innovation by Internet hardware makers. The Internet is one of the few things working well these days. I've seen no actual examples of ISPs doing anything to disrupt the customer experience. They want happy customers after all. Seen lots of scaremongering "Well what if they do this or do that?"
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic
Telecom companies may not be discriminating currently but they have strong incentives to violate the end-to-end principle. Communications technologies are converging and telecom companies face the loss of significant cable TV and phone revenue to things like Netflix and Skype. Telecommunications is not a competitive market. The big players like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want want to use their control of the lines to extract profit from innovative Internet companies.
derpitydoodaa 1 year ago
@derpitydoodaa The only people claiming ISPs have strong incentives to screw their customers are people who don't understand free markets and the tenuous relationship between customers and businesses. Customers can and will jettison a business if they are not happy with the service, hence why so far (with no NN laws) the Internet has been evolving remarkably. All we need to do is not get stupid and let the government get its slimy nose in the door. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T "FIX" IT.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Youre not an American, you have dog in this fight.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
@derpitydoodaa OutLawTom is not even an American.
He's just going to flap is virtual gums to gain noteriety but he contributes nothing to this national debate.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
@OutlawTomFantastic How will NN 'curb innovation by future hardware makers'? Theres the strawman of the century argument. As if the hardware makers dont have enough incentive right now to innovate? If as you say the 'internet is fine as it is.' how will NN change that in your opinion? Try not to repeat what Glenn Beck said, if you do you will be no better than the leftist scum of 2 years ago who parroted the talking points of msnbc.
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
@ThunderAppeal Right now the remarkable hardware that comprises the Internet has evolved because companies have had the freedom to experiment with different profit models. If you allow the government in there they will harm the ability to make profits, and without profits there is no incentive to continue evolving hardware. We've seen it happen with car companies where they introduce supposedly harmless regulations that end up making it impossible for new companies to enter the marketplace.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Do you know how the internet came to be? Who the players were who were involved in creating the internet? I own an American car and am quite happy with it, but youre going to tell me that a Chevrolet V8 from 30 years ago is more fuel efficient and makes more horsepower and torque than a brand new GM corporate block with fuel injection and engine management systems? FI was something the American auto manufacturers were vehemently against for years after the foreign makes.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@ThunderAppeal The modern Internet (not the ancient Arpanet), which was started in the early 90s, was built and financed by private companies spread out all over the United States and the world. They are the ones that brought it up to the incredible speeds we see today. One of the reasons it thrived was because there were no regulations on anything. One of the reasons Arpanet did nothing for 20 years was because the government regulated how many new sites could connect each year. Typical.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic The government regulated it to the extent necessary for national security. Once a new technology came along or an improvement on the old one the internet was 'released to the public. Besides that the technology of the day could not be utilized for a seamless transition and yes it was private industry that built the microchip it was however with government contracts that the technology was funded. The telcos oppose NN because they've over extended themselves with the 'new f
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic the new 'faster' internet. The actual outrageous cost it takes to build the 'fiber' networks we see today could not possibly be recouped with the fees that they charge the average consumer. But the consumer doesnt give a shit everyone fucking needs 1gb/sc internet access.
So the scheme the telcos cooked up was that in addition to the regular fees they charge they want to also charge network access fees. NN enforces freedom of speech.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@ThunderAppeal Well then if they spent a butt-load of money to implement ultra-fast Internet, who are you to stand in their way of making a profit? I thought you would be thankful for what they've done, that they offered it to us voluntarily (they didn't force anyone to be their customers) and as the owners of the business and of that equipment they have every right to experiment with whatever business models they want to try out. It's called the free market. That's why it is so great.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic I couldnt give a half a shit about how much money they spent on 'ultrafast' internet. They can spend it to the point where they can go bankrupt for all I care, which they nearly have. The problem I have is the possibility that they want to ream the customer on the back end. The same free market you talk about which is so great (and I wont deny that) is the same market that requires food manufacturers to put ingredient on their labels. Food companies do not do so willingly.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@ThunderAppeal ??? So in your world, the businesses are supposed to shell out billions of dollars and then just go away and give you free stuff. Wow, what color is the sky in your world exactly? It always puzzles me when someone is talking about how great free markets are, then someone points out that it isn't truly a free market because the government is currently screwing it up with regulations. Yes, we are all aware that the government likes to ruin a good thing. And your point is...?
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Now youre being a fucking clown. Youre doing the same bullshit that the leftists do when someone said something that is beyond comprehension. They fall back on a default argument that doesnt tie in to the original statement. You've completely disregarded my analogy about ingredients on food and what I pointed out about companies over extending themselves financially. You live in an imaginary world where there are no regulations at all whatsoever. There is no such world.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic There is a bigger problem that is growing with regards to the internet, something I'm sure you are completely ignoring. The states are now pushing harder to start collecting sales tax on internet transactions. Mainly because the mom and pop stores that are too slow and/or dumb to be smart enough to put up a website to capitalize on the internet are being driven out of business. Oh, and walmart needs to be able to force people to buy from them because they've also overe
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@ThunderAppeal Now you've moved on to making no sense whatsoever. Please, do tell how Walmart could possibly force someone to buy from them. I'd love to hear this. What, do they stand outside with cattle prods and herd customers into their doors? Do they duct-tape items into customers' hands so that they are forced to leave with their products?
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic overextended themselves.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic BTW, the phone companies had oh so reluctantly spent money on new technology when the internet was 'unrestricted' from the 'old arpanet'. There were BBSs prior to that which given enough time probably would have come to the same conclusion as phone companies. Additionally the phone companies have done their damnest to prevent smaller telcos to thrive and offer their own solutions to internet connectivity.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic Youre not an American, I dont really care what you have to say. This does not concern you because in your nation you have no document that secures your freedom of speech.
ThunderAppeal 10 months ago
@derpitydoodaa is this supposed to be stuff that only nerds understand or is it just pure nonsense?
cekinxxx 2 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic The internet is resilent,but your ISP connection is not.They can block what they like. That said, its not about "blocking" its about slowing down and charging more for the content creators.
Its unlikely anything will be blocked, but ISPs do want to charge content creators more ontop of the bandwidth they already pay for. The idea is, say, HULU gets a "fast lane" while Blip.tv for example, gets a slow one.ISPs have falsly claimed that companies like youtube get a "free ride".
twdarkflame 10 months ago
@twdarkflame "The idea" as you explain above doesn't sound like an idea that would fly in the free markets. People don't want their ISPs slowing down sites, and will flee from any ISP that attempts to do such a block-headed move. From all the hay people have been making about this issue here, I still see zero reason to allow the government to put its very large and obstructive camel's nose under the tent.
OutlawTomFantastic 10 months ago
@OutlawTomFantastic btw, you have a completely incorrect idea of what NN is. its not goiv regulation, its gov assurance that it will remain open. im done. you have nothing to offer so try to resist responding.
nnndddnnnddd 10 months ago
I'll bet you can't tell me what the first amendment says and explain exactly what it means!
handheldgamer144 1 year ago
The strawman argument of the century.
CountArtha 1 year ago
Important info, hurt them BACK:
I got my internet bill lower by threatening to leave for another company if they didn't give me the new customer price for 12 months. I was paying 40 a month from ATT and got it lowered to 20 a month for the same elite package. There is another company in my area that offers 20 a month.
I'll leave ATT if there's no penalty always but sure as shit I'm leaving when the year is over.
Spread the word, I'm sure it would work with comcast too. Fight back.
MoJoSB 1 year ago
@MoJoSB Yeah, you think going from one ISP to another will solve the problem? How about when there are only 3 or 2 ISP's left who operate under the facade that they are 'competing with one another' (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). So that they can make sure to keep the government happy enough not to have monopoly hearings against them. How about when the next ISP while they are 'independent' has to charge you 3 times the price of the bigger ISP because the cost of business and technology goes up?
ThunderAppeal 1 year ago
ISP's have not been restricting access. GOVERNMENT will *DEFINITELY* restrict access.
RangerKozak 1 year ago 2
I'm sorry...when did a company "put up a wall" and stop users from viewing content on the Internet? Oh, THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED? Ah. That's what I thought. *eyeroll*
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago 2
@WideWorldOfWisdom Thats what this video is about. Thats what they could do in the future if net neutrality doesn't happen. Because that "wall" will be huge fees that most normal people couldn't pay. Theres already some talk by them about making us pay just to see facebook or youtube.
gvcdkg 1 year ago
@gvcdkg wait a minute. Maybe I missed something. I thought companies were in business to make as much money as possible. How is charging a price that "most" people couldn't pay going to do anything but hurt revenues? What would be the point? That's like saying Coca-Cola has a secret formula that no one can replicate. So they're going to exploit that and charge "huge fees that most normal people couldn't pay" for their special one-of-a-kind drink. Why the hell would they do that?
WideWorldOfWisdom 1 year ago
@gvcdkg So should I be afraid of a freaking meteor falling though my house and killing me? Just saying. Maybe we should all wear helmets. Or we should live underground because IT COULD happen you know.
If you want the government to take care of everything for you just donate money to your local representative and ask them to wipe your butt for you too... Have you ever known a politician to do something good for the public?
homegrownsurvivor 1 year ago
check a ninja training blip.tv/file/4516818
share if you like it
Greenlime15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you read this you will die tonight
if ou done want to die send this to 5 other videos unti 12 tongiht
is this real ?
YareenxD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you read this you will die tonight
if ou done want to die send this to 5 other videos unti 12 tongiht
is this real ?
YareenxD 1 year ago
halo dude..
can i ask...
how to be a real ninja like ninja assassin movie??
hahax...
maybe my question very funny..
but i really wants to be a ninja....
DxHist0rY 1 year ago
ima firin mah lazah!
thespazzypreteen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The vehicles for the privatization of the public internet are:
P.O.W.D.E.R. The "Protocol for Web Description Resurces"
and P.I.C.S. "Platform for Internet Content Selection"
Both were developed under the impetus of stopping child pornography.
It is the protocol for Labeling.Content publishers are not the only entities which can label their own content. anyone can and the labeling will be maintained on 3rd party databases content publishers have no say in how their content gets labeled.
lostbuffalo 1 year ago
Xd funny hats
FlyFreeSkyline 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A hilarious take on a very serious issue that not too many people know about when this video was created. The line: "Not while we have this big wall that is built out of the shredded First Amendment.", pretty much sums up what can potentially happen.
Cornelljay 1 year ago
FUCK I LOVE YOU I WANT TO HAVE JO BAB BAZ AND IU AM A MMAN>>> OK MAYBE NOT BECAUSE NINJAZ EATZ JO BAB BAZ!!!!
MidnightRayn 1 year ago
@MidnightRayn ur not funny
skpaegnacne 1 year ago
@skpaegnacne your not fun
MidnightRayn 1 year ago
@MidnightRayn ur cool
skpaegnacne 1 year ago
Hmm, I don't know why Verizon and Google can't speed up websites they want sped up, without slowing down the "inferior" ones.
dave1sfx 1 year ago
yes the wall is made up of shreds of the first ammendment!
nottinmatterz2day 1 year ago
this is old, but its still a relevant topic. Keep fighting for net neutrality in -all- its forms. Not just what a few certain big companies tell ya (which leaves some opportunies for them to make money on a ignorant citizen). ;D
hajkie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Boycott Google and Verizon NOW. The people of the World own the Internet not Google or Verizon. Power to the People !! Vive le revolution !! Vive Net Neutrality.
Google are Big. We the People are Bigger.
RememberToday4ever 1 year ago
Do you really believe we are ninja two?
sebicoolio 1 year ago
i really need to get some back up singers.
Bozzytotem 1 year ago
awesome! (valid comment)
Almightythor 1 year ago
Here's what this whole argument boils down to- ultimately, 'control' of the internet, for lack of a better term, is inevitably going to be relegated to one of two entities- the corporation, or the government. It's a lesser of two evils scenario, I know, so who do we trust more, with this most precious of information resources?
duraiel 1 year ago
Glureed!
mushugai 1 year ago
(continued)
As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
This is what you are begging the return of:
From Heritage Foundation:
Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.)
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski HAH! You're using copypastas from the Heritage Foundation?
Yeah, THAT'S a real trusted source.
Sprocketman 1 year ago
From Heritage Foundation on Fairness Doctrine:
"Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.
Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased."
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
If your internet service provider does that, you find another ISP. You do not run to the government for help because only by force (government regulation) can the 1st amendment be shredded. A company operating on mutual agreement can never pose a threat to the 1st amendment
Most ISPs will not regulate the internet since most costumers want to have access to all content
Net neutrality is the biggest threat towards internet freedom and freedom in general
Typical fascist propaganda!
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski which ISP do you work for?
indrim 1 year ago
@indrim
Which of these children are you:
watch?v=t30cyQwaXZg
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ThorkilKowalski are you fucking dumb look up net neutrality they dont break the 1st amendment of the internet they bend it and it isnt typical fascist propaganda you typical fuck brain moron
JuicyJwtfwhoo 1 year ago
@JuicyJwtfwhoo Here's an idea, how about when you're calling someone stupid, you try to use language that makes you seem intelligent, and not just mindlessly spew swear words that makes people think you lack brain cells.
Pwnzoar1 1 year ago
@JuicyJwtfwhoo I don't mean to critique your, uh, critique method- Yeah I do. Less emotion, more logic. "You fuck brain moron?" Not a convincing argument.
duraiel 1 year ago
@duraiel who gives a shit!? this is YOUTUBE for crying out loud.
theundeadsoulss 1 year ago
@theundeadsoulss Well, yeah, and it's a medium of communication, like the internet, except that the problem, net neutrality, is SOMETHING REAL, IN CONGRESS AND SERIOUS. Depending on how that issue swings it will give companies unsupervised power to limit access to parts of the web's content. But then again, who gives a shit? After all, it's just youtube, right?
duraiel 1 year ago
@duraiel ¬_¬ it was directed at ur comment about the way that guy expressed his views (through swearing) there's no need to put a fully intellectual answer on a site like this. Ok? -_-
theundeadsoulss 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski So, did you decide to say that because Fox News tell you to?
Where were you during the net neutrality debates back in 2006?
Or did you not realize this video is OVER FOUR YEARS OLD?
Honestly, it's not the hostility I mind, it's the willful ignorance.
Sprocketman 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski You seem to forget that big businesses don't care about you. They will do whatever they think is necissary to take more money from you. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the Government regulating the Internet. It is all about the government regulating what the companies do. If a big company doesn't like a certain site, or some content that disagrees with anything they say, they can make you pay more, or make that site slower. THIS is what Net Neutrality prevents.
foxintheshadow 1 year ago 2
@foxintheshadow
The only entity who can TAKE money from me is by definition the government. All companies must get my money by mutual voluntary consent.
Just like the relationship between me and my ISP is by MUTUAL VOLUNTARY CONSENT. That is why I do not need protection from my ISP. Saying I do, implies that I need protection from myself which is the shortest way to fascism.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski
Doesn't the same argument apply to the sale of cocaine? The purchaser has a voluntary relationship with the dealer, so it must be all good, right? what about products made with lead based paint? payday loans with interest rates high enough that they can never be paid off (some of these are legal, but there is a cap on interest rates, at least in Canada)? mortgages designed to fail? call me fascist for wanting to stop those things.
TheAirborneKite 1 year ago
@TheAirborneKite
Yes. And I will call you a fascist.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski
1: yes to what?
2: So you do, in fact support cocaine decriminalization as well as market deregulation to allow the sale of toys covered in lead based paint to children. I think the fascists are looking pretty good right now.
TheAirborneKite 1 year ago
@TheAirborneKite
Yes to the decriminalization of cocaine and other drugs. I do however think that the PUBLIC use of these substances can be regulated - preferably by municipalities or states.
In children toys, no. It only makes sense to talk about mutual voluntary consent if for grown-ups since children are not expected to have the same kind of reasoning as adults. Just like, I don't think children should be allowed to buy heroin.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski both valid points, although the first could be hotly contended. The thing that I think makes the difference here is that a few telecom companies have a monopoly that is essentially unbreakable, because the infrastructure necessary is too expensive for a young company to deal with. The end result of this is that the market cannot self regulate, which is why I think that government regulation is, in fact necessary.
I apologize for the immature last sentence of my previous comment
TheAirborneKite 1 year ago
@TheAirborneKite
No problem. I was also being a bit hyperbolic when I called you a fascist that is how Internet conversations and especially YouTube discussions are.
I do however think that the large companies' monopolies are being reduced by the emergence of new technologies like Internet over the 3G net etc.
And how many companies practice the policy of prioritizing certain Internet traffic? This is imho a non-issue.
ThorkilKowalski 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski true, but it is still a powerful monopoly, and if it was allowed to regulate access, it would become very hard for new companies to emerge. And yes, none of this is currently happening, (aside from googlezon, which is by no means a worst case scenario), this movement is entirely preventative.
TheAirborneKite 1 year ago
@ThorkilKowalski You really have NO IDEA what your talking about.
divad838 1 year ago
hey...I like that wall of cheese reference 1st AMENDMENT...good vid made me laugh...
coffin13 1 year ago
Robert Williams making bacon juice in a mesh shirt? : / if you say so.
taz18mythbuster 1 year ago
SHREDED FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!lol thats a good one. . . . damn internet providers
RTard48JRod 1 year ago
hahaha
mag1381 1 year ago
lol, wall of shredded 1st amendment
Ball3rOnaBudg3t 2 years ago 5
I got over the Juggernaut spoof a long time ago. But for the life of me this is one of those internet gems that never loses it's appeal to me. Keep 'em coming dude. Shit is funny as hell bro....
jerrynuevo 2 years ago
You are awesome!
hassankadem8 2 years ago
"Give Us Some Fried Cheese"
ToiletRoller 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the fuck is this shit non of it makes since...
UnitTheWorld 2 years ago
That's because you have your head up your ass
magicjoybox 2 years ago
lolz, what the fuck? is he a german ninja?
gaarasgoodside 2 years ago
yay lou reed!
ThePewber 2 years ago
This is so not directed towards porn :)
BarmielNagisa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
some1 make a ask a nigger series
centar50 2 years ago
...?
applepiewithtoast 2 years ago
I did... it's called, "your kids".
midknightbluez 2 years ago
haha i just rememberd about ask a ninja classic
DragonSniper7 2 years ago 2
a wall made of the shredded first ammendment, hold together by glu(e -gr)eed :D
phlexonance 2 years ago 34
How come ninjas don't tell sex jokes?
bmantz4 2 years ago
cause sex rimes with death and ninjas don't joke with death XD
Zafoshin 2 years ago
i thought the internet was developed for porns? I
jerkshop 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU ARE WRONG the internet is for porn! haha
YankeeNation009 2 years ago 14
HAH
VandonBan 2 years ago
LMAO!
FeelLike45Ninja 2 years ago
LOL shredded amendment.
edenscancer 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
I loved the first 10 - 15 eps of this, after that though it got really over the top and lame
NexusDarkworld338 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuk u
nothinbuthax 2 years ago
Amen.
ToothMusic 2 years ago
Holy-Terrorist:>hehehe the reeepetition o loleye
Agentoxedo07 2 years ago
Holy-Terrorist:>*=* wooow is haard
Agentoxedo07 2 years ago
XD "Not while we have this big wall that is built out of the shredded First Amendment."
Firestarter9000 2 years ago 62
Glue made from greed, Laughing my head off.
Malndor 2 years ago 3
fried cheese is really yummy =)
bekahbug101 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
some one Help fix youtube its Broken go on all the forums you can find and post about it
abba149 2 years ago
your so funny
twirlergirl55 2 years ago
lmao i love how he put diferent seenz togethr it was brilliant
Kidzonthebloc72 2 years ago
i know his cousin"kyle"
J3r3IvIy 2 years ago
ninja rulez >=)
lilloki83 2 years ago
THANK YOU NET NINJA!! :D
unomiel 2 years ago
woow dude jou ar awsome
009998374576577623e5 2 years ago
???? hell god
009998374576577623e5 2 years ago
thats so true...
xwarxsabrewulf 2 years ago
I love NINJA!!!!
Glacklock 2 years ago 2
aaaahhhh who is the ninja
Kamibandit 2 years ago
Check for ninja revealed on youtube. There's a video of that.
o0charlotte0o 2 years ago
this dude is awsome sooo tureeee there should be no limits period
javanox 2 years ago
net neudoo nality~ net neudoo nality~ ahhhhh subliminal message..
PorchDinkey 2 years ago
lol not really
WhoElseButMichael 2 years ago 3
lol shredded up first amendamant.
quadlark 2 years ago 2
Thanks for making that so much clearer.
iraleecantellia 2 years ago
Seriously though your ISP "Internet Service Provider" most likely have already signed on with this "block the internet plan". Google YouTube and Yahoo definitely have.
If your in a position of power do something
If not watch hot dog on a stick girl.
slw2222 2 years ago
good thing the effing FCC isn't siding with the big corporate telecommunications companies. :D
408mile408 2 years ago
I love watching the Hot Dog on a Stick girl make lemonade. It's hilarious.
GoldenArcher 2 years ago 2
where can i see it? what is it?
mctg88 2 years ago
OMG. Robin Williams went to Books A million and bought manga, and video game books!! <3
Jociecat 2 years ago
great
nalextte 2 years ago
OMG! That was so funny. Gotta love the ninja. :DDDD
Revenantazra 2 years ago 4
This is so excellent.
Daghead 2 years ago
I am ninja He is ninja She is ninja We are ninja I think you are ninja too
So, where the song from.
lokalliz