The second I hear that annoying little-kid voice "da viewa pwesenth" I know it's an idiotic video and skip it; he always says something insipidly stupid.
if i live to my late 90's, i'm going to make a phone call to some random person and say everything your not allowed to say over the phone, just to see if they do anything.
Im a democrat, but your voice is super annoying. stop making political points, anyone informe enough to look up these clips or watch colbert doesnt need your spin on things.
McStain is a progressive republican... Obama is a progressive democrat.... Bush was a progressive republican... MORE GOVERNMENT MORE SOCIAL INSANE LAWS MORE AUTHORITARIAN RULE.... vote out democrats and republicans! vote in Libertarians and third party canidates!
@Z0mgZ0mbies calm down man. And to be honest, a vote for a libertarian is just a wasted vote....they aren't going to be gaining any power any time soon
If the police can track and capture a terrorist/rapist/child molester/murderer/etc by listening to their phone calls and reading their emails, more power to them. I hope they use those tools. I doubt the police are going to break down my door just to "see if I'm doing anything illegal."
@kevin15776 Oh yeah? You know how many people are on the watch list just because they have spoke out against the government? Ill put up a link to a video from a journalist who shows how america is getting awfully close to the nazi laws to keep their people under control.
@kevin15776 "If the police can track and capture a terrorist/rapist/child molester/murderer/etc by listening to their phone calls and reading their emails, more power to them ... I doubt the police are going to break down my door just to "see if I'm doing anything illegal."
You'd have loved Soviet Union back in the day then.
I have absolutely nothing to hide so i don't care. they can listen to all of my phone calls and read all of my emails. If it help make the US safer, they can even look in my underwear drawer. I could not care less. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens is a totally different issue.
Thats the worst attitude about your rights one can have.
Why even have warrant laws, so police can just walk in with guns, just to make sure you arent doing anything illegal. "If you dont have anything to hide, why try to hide anything?" is missing the point, and the reason why we have rights.
@kevin15776 You're a poor patriot and a shallow thinker. Warrantless searches aren't even a HAIRSBREADTH difference from a position to plant evidence. And they can be done while you and your children are sleeping in the house.
Men in black carrying firearms into your home while you sleep don't bother you?
What about the privacy of OTHERS who write to you? Visit you? You don't deserve freedom.
We did not prosecute the telecoms for the same exact thing during the 1970's during the Church and other Committees... We should have nailed them to the wall then, and now. We did it to the German manufacturers that cooperated with the Nazi's....
Damn good point. That's how you can tell if a government REALLY wants to change things; if they have the balls to throw out the draconian (or merely bad) laws the last lot put in place....
Because Republicans are at best tools, and at worst fascists. Or if neither of those gullible or just plain stupid. And sometimes a combination of two or more of all the above.
Since none of these are traits I like in people (in fact their traits I HATE in people) I subsequently don't like Republicans. (Nor other right-wing types.) Of course as a raging misanthrope I don't like to many people to begin with, but I definitly don't like the right-wing even a little.
This video is months old, I know, but the answer to the question is this - Republicans are in lockstep with corporations because they both aggregate wealth to themselves together, while hard working poor immigrants supposedly take wealth out of their pockets. Furthermore, if those hard working immigrants get citizenship, they would vote Democrat.
To an extent they are, but generally, Democrats are much more friendly to the working class, and to immigrants in particular, which is why Republicans fear them, because pro-immigration policies result in more Democratic votes.
Huh, usually it's conservatives who preach privacy and small government, but now its the Liberals who're defending those ideals, probably because they simply hate Bush with a mad fury, throwing punches at him like a wounded animal, blindly lashing out at shapes and colors...
actually liberals aren't preaching those ideals. You do know about the massive spending bill i'm assuming (which was pushed by Liberals) which in fact increases government size. watch the news. Also why would the liberals want a smaller gov. because they hate Bush? that doesn't come close to making sense considering he decreased the size of the gov.
Uh, yeah he is. Not that Clinton or any democrat is not corrupt as well. For example, the no bid contracts given to Dick Cheney's company Haliburton to maintain Walter Reed Army Medical Center and then left vets in shitholes.
it's like being horrible at baseball but you manage to hit a home run. It doesn't mean your good it just means you got lucky, so Bush was too stupid to be corrupt but he still managed to pull it off. You must be a conservative?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Europeans are so "lucky" to be able to engage in sodomy with their men in the open, in a European setting as Darwinists push their collectivist agenda through the courts.
it's read by libertarians as well. I remember reading the book when i was 15 or so after reading Orwell's 1984. I found myself rejecting much of Rand's Philosophy by the time i got around to reading Huxley's "Brave New World" as i had more of inclination to accept the "Trade-off" mechanic between collective cooperation and individual freedom.
I would never consider Ayn Rand's idea's of merit equitable with intellect, as most of the book was simply "wishful thinking".
well that is true, but I am not a fan of political labels because I have spent hours looking for what mine would be and the closest thing I could find is Geolibertarian Socialist, which is not a concept most would understand. Orwell is interesting when it comes to politics, because he was a Socialist, but at the same time he wrote the book that helped halt totalitarianism, which is the end result of most socialist states. Personally I see no hope for ending the "class struggle"
Socialism is an economic principle. Libertarianism is a social principle.
You could be both.
Most conservatives in the US are more Authoritarian than liberals, and its the liberals in the US that appear to be pushing for smaller government or not to increase the size of government.
if you read adam smith, socialism and smith's "a system of perfect liberty" share common goals and similar thou not identical tactics. "Capitalist" usually means corporatist, mercantilist and imperialist. In the us most libertarians advocate the most unaccountable extreme tyranny of private power under a banner of anti-statism. I see liberty, equality and justice as three principals that require each other.
actually both are economic and social and you cannot be both. You can't minimize AND maximize sate control at once genius.
Neither Rep. or Dem. are authoritarian. the liberals are not pushing for a smaller gov. what would make you say that? everything you said was complete bs
Socialism is economic, because it emphasizes a people directed approach to economics. This can be done in any number of ways, such as the application of Keynesian economics as is done in the US, or regulation, or subsidisation (which is also done in the US, see the republican military model).
Libertarian is a statement on states involvement in social issues, in the sense that libertarians believe individuals can handle social isssues (which isnt always true).
Also, democrats, atleast in the last 20 years, have been less inclined to increase government, in comparison to Reagan, H.W Bush and W. Bush who all increased the size of government and spending running under the guise of "fiscal conservatism".
The last fiscally responsible president the US had was ironically, Bill Clinton, and prior to that, Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the 92% tax rate).
I asked jimmy urine of Mindless Self Indulgence if he got the band's name from Atlas Shrugged and he told me i should get a prize cuase no ones ever asked him that....maybe you're right. im aliterary fan btw. People dont read books any more? My friends do...
Revisionists & non-readers compensate for their ignorance by forwarding the premise that nothing of significance happened before their time. Literature's great works were written before the advent of the Beatles.
There's no more of a ban on homosexual "marriage" than there is on eating children or sewing your eyelids to your eyebrows. The concept of men marrying one another is so absurd as to be unworthy of consideration within the canon of law.
You still go to jail for eating a baby though (as I mentioned before). Regardless, Homosexual marriage is nowhere near eating a baby or sewing your eyelids shut.
Why? Hm, let's see, eating a baby involves having a dead baby at hand (and if it isn't dead, then it is assault, among other offenses) and the eyelids thing is a form of disrespect to yourself.
HM does not fit the bill, as it involved the respect of two people and a LEGAL compromise. Explain to me how this is in the same level.
You were lead by the nose, and the country into a ditch for 8 yrs while Bush looted the treasury for his war, his friends at Haliburton, Wall Street and Main St. Where was your outrage then?
And Socialism? The schools, fire and police are socialist organizations according to your definition. You're a slave already if you've ever used any of these gov't run, socialist services. I know you didn't use the school option...
Where do people get the idea that state control is socialism? Loosely defined, it simply means public control over important economic institutions that affect the public. If you interpret the state to be a publicly controlled institutions then state control may be seen as socialism, but MANY people who self-identify as socialists do not make this connection, for example anarchists.
Funny that socialists describe it in broad terms much as I defined it going back to the coining of the term and the earliest socialist organizations. Look it up.
straber..... Your just another ignorant fuck that doesn't care about any one else but your self; and swallows and enjoys every bit of bullshit the bush administration gave you. (you're so scared you call your self a patriot) No one ever mentioned giving " radical extremist dick heads" the legal permanent residency or as u call it "amnesty" we are talking about immigrants that want the hard working jobs slobs like your self don't want because it requires lifting a finger.
Where did you ever get the notion that ACLU is self-hating? It would seem to me that, just the opposite, they truly are the only ones (often) looking out for Citizens' rights
Is this a set up for a punchline? How fanatical are they?
More likely this is the limit to which you've gone over this issue in your mind. It's only the constitution don't give it too much thought or anything.
I'll bet all you whiners pay taxes, which makes you part of the government you bitch about. As Henry David Thoreau said, "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail."
Thoreau was a beast, he didnt pay taxes during the Spanish American war. But whats an alternative? A former IRS head said he could not fing a law in which you are required to file an income tax; He hasnt in years. He also quit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
so u rather protect the civil liberties of some radical extremist dick head that doesn't even have citizenship that comes here just to destroy america U WANT TO PROTECT THERE RIGHTS SCREW THAT THE NEXT TIME ANOTHER 9/11 HAPPENS COME AND TALK TOO ME ABOUT THESE ASSHOLES "CIVIL RIGHTS" WHO PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA OR WHEN ONE OF UR LOVED ONES IS DRIVING OVER A BRIDGE AND ONLY god KNOWS WAT CAN HAPPEN!!!
wow you sound like Palin and McCain when they talked about "another holocaust". It's been what, 4 or 5 years? Find something new to justify your wars american pig.
But of course the death of any other human in any other nation means nothing to you, am I right? So long as it doesn't affect you it makes it right? You make me sick, seriously.
Don't you know that if we destroy our own civil liberties, we would be doing the work of radical extremists FOR THEM?
It's the liberal america that these assholes hate. And the more we destroy ourselves this way the more we begin to resemble these Ultra Intolerant Anti-liberal Terrorists.
As the saying goes, who needs terrorists when the government is bent on destroying what the country stands for?
destroying what? a nation full of people to scared or too dumb to Commit to Anything? Tell ya what...Lets start our OWN collection of intelligent people to discuss both world and US events. What will we as a group do you ask? that is for the group to decide.
joe biden is all for the patriot act. its something that liberal media stations like msnbc and cnn dont want you to know. he loves these government agencies such as the fbi and will allow them to get rid of the meaning "privacy" for the government being allowed to search up on you as the U.S. citizens.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Because they are criminals. Because the american government favors big business profits, because those profits turn into political donations, which then because political obligations to make them more profits, and the circle of US politics keeps on turning. Land of the free my ass. You people are bought sold and paid for, and you don't even get it.
its not the government that favors big businesses and such, its the people who run our government that favor the big businesses. we should look more into who we elect as our leaders of our nation if we enjoy our freedom. our government was built on this saying to be true forever in our govenment, "by the people, for the people, and of the people, of the United States." watch more closely who you decide to run your life as a citizen
What I don't understand is the Government can wiretap phones if they get warrent. Why don't hey just get a warrent? They are in the Bush Adminstration and could get a Right-Wing Judge to give them a warrent. Man I would hae to be weird tapped then humilated and found out I can't sue AT&T when I did nothing wrong.
thats what i said till I got my new car which I drove up to montana to start a furniture company. It was okay until we had to move the company to new york
For a while this election season, it looked as if Hillary Clinton would become president. Now it seems that Barack Obama has a strong chance. Hillary could very well be his veep.
Would the conservatives here have trusted President Hillary with this kind of power? Do they trust a President Barack with this kind of power?
Well guess what: he's going to have it. Whatever power was handed to Bush, Obama and every president after him will have.
So, iwebber88, are you going to vote for Obama since he has pretty much chosen his VP pick? Me personally, I really like Obama, but I like the fact that McCain isn't an idiot either. I dissagree with lots of people in that both candidates suck. IF they think that, then why not look into third parties?
craziness won't impeach them. So, I'm not sure if this government is guilty of being unchecked any more than any other previous administration. I seriously doubt that the Bush administration would misuse their authority in such a way; after all, why would they do it? There is neither reason nor proof to substantiate that claim, to my knowledge. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Here in the states, when politicians state they are against amnesty, they are usually refering to undocumented immigrants, people who's only "crime" is looking for work.
I don't mean to butt in but you seem like a cool, reasonable person to talk to but they are also guilty of breaking our immigration laws, thus they should be punished, right?
so, aren't they trying to protect the corporations from lawsuits that result from government ordered wiretaps? After all, if the government told them to do it in the interest of national security, why should people attack them with lawsuits? Besides, people act like the wiretapping is such a invasion of privacy, it actually did help foil a few plots (Brooklyn Bridge, German etc.) Seems like a small price to pay if any. And just who are these poor working people you mention at the end?
The confidentiality of our private communications is in the hands of the telecom corporations. They have an obligation to protect our privacy. Allowing people to listen in on private conversations without a warrant is serious invasion of privacy.
How would you feel about your landlord allowing police or other authorities into your home without a warrant, allowing them free access to your home whenever they felt like it and without your knowledge? Would that also be okay with you?
I'm not sure that's the same thing. Frankly, the wiretapees are probably not listening to your conversation unless you do have terrorist affiliation in which case its your own fault for doing that in today's climate. It's hardly as Orwellian as people are led to believe. Plus, these "illegal wiretappings" or whatever are actually thwarting terrorist plots, so if placing harmless wiretaps are going to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones, I'm okay with that, are you?
"...probably not listening to your conversation unless you do have terrorist affiliation..." You seem to have a lot of trust that the authorities are just going to do the right thing. I don't think you can just trust those in power to not abuse their power. I think it is important that we have judicial oversight. I believe they should be required to show they have a good reason to listen in.
Why would they not do the right thing? What evidence is there to support that this current edition of the US government would abuse their power when there is a much greater threat at stake? It seems too many of us are stuck in Watergate/conspiracy theory mode and don't want to see that by and large, the government wants to protect us, and I believe that terrorist threats are a good reason to listen in on those who have such connections. If you're not one of them, then they aren't listening.
How can you possibly trust the Bush administration after all the lies and scandals?
Even if the current administration was beyond reproach, history shows that those given power without any type of regulation will abuse that power. That is why the framers of our constitution designed our government to have three branches, so there would be checks and balances and power would remain with the people and not with one individual.
What proof do you have of such lies and scandals? And you are probably right, those with unchecked power are more likely to abuse their power, good thing we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights which to my knowledge the current administration has yet to illegally bypass, despite the misinformation generated certain far left sources. After all, if they were guilty with proof, don't you think they would be out of office by now instead of being reelected? Even Pelosi, despite her cont
I get my information from NPR (National Public Radio), L.A. Times, The Nation Magazine, The Guardian, and "The Lies of George W. Bush", by David Corn- to name a few sources. So, dasloan, where do you get your news from?
Similar sources (Radio, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Houston Chronicle, Politico, etc.). I try to balance my biased media (there is no unbiased media). Your list looks pretty balanced too, I might try some of yours, especially the Corn book, I'm sure its a very objective account of the Bush administration, and The Nation, self-described liberal bias. Not to mention that horrible things the LA Times said about Tony Snow in the obituaries. Sounds like you're all set.
watergate led up to an assassination of a president....thats not call for alarm? thegovernmentdoesnt have a good track record of doing the right thing.
I knew this was going to be terrible when he said "hard working poor people looking for work" in the beginning. One: McCain was talking about illegal immigrants. Sure they may work hard, but please come over legally and play by the rules. Two: I have no problem with the government tapping phones if it means putting criminals in jail and getting vital information on terrorist and criminals. It's not like the government will tap your phone just because they want to. They'll have a reason.
the problem is that they dont tap only terrorists phones. they tap everyones phones. your phone calls have been recorded and so have mine along with millions of other americans. and the main problem that i have with that other than the obvious breach of privacy is that when you tap millions of phones without warrents how can you sift through all that and find the actual terrorists.
After the Justice Department scandal, in which it came out that the Department was screening applicants by political ideology and selectively targeting liberals for investigation, how can you justify the position that the government needs more power?
This is ludicrous. There are already procedures in place for expanding police power in emergency situations, and amnesty for the companies that broke the law is just flat out wrong. If you want to comment further PM me.
The Govt is just having a little harmless fun. The corporations would like you to buy their products, the govt would like you to be mindless and obedient, the handful of rich brats behind the scenes would like you to blame each other, and the little guy next to you would rather not look away from the tube. You are the one who you have been waiting for, No one is coming to your rescue.
Thanks for this. The Democratic leadership, led by the disgracefully compliant Pelosi-Reid team, accepted the immunity bill as a "compromise." What part of the Fourth Amendment is not compromised by this amnesty deal. And the Democrat promise of giving "hard working people" relief comes at the expense of doing whatever corporations and the bushworld they created wish--to those same people.
Really though, no one's privacy is being invaded. No law exists to prevent this kind of data collection. Furthermore the information is ONLY being used to prove that copy righted material is in fact being viewed. The manner in which Viacom is able to use the acquired data is very finite and specific. Any other use will be deemed illegal and Viacom will be held in contempt. No one should really be concerned. An IP address is as private as a telephone number.
Ahhh, I see what the issue is now. Its taking McCain's comment "I've never supported Amnesty" completely out of context and then using it to claim McCain is a hypocrite. That's clever but its very misleading and dishonest just to serve this video's agenda. This completely corrupts the validity and credibility of this entire video. This is just the same game that the conservative plays in bashing liberals. LiberalViewer... shame. Please do better.
I was neither "dishonest" nor "misleading" because I clearly explained the context. I said:
"John McCain DOES support amnesty, but not amnesty for the hard working poor people coming to America to look for work, of course, but rather, McCain supports amnesty for the huge telecommunications corporations whose lobbyists are so close with McCain."
So, I HONESTLY explained the kind of amnesty McCain supports and the kind he opposes
Funny... LiberalViewer uses a clip of McCain talking about immigration amnesty... and then goes on to talk about corporate amnesty... Ok... I used to sorta-like his vids... but is it just me or does this not make much sense?
I think he watched it - I think he's refering to the fact that playing material unrelated with a break off into a subject with the the use of a word in a different context makes a ridiculous arugment.
Its pretty easy to understand, its a reference to stark moral difference in policy that McCain supports.
On the other hand I can see some confusion as to exactly what the aim of this video is. Is it denouncing Amenesty to Telecom or McCain's position of Immigration, or some blending of the two to bash both subjects.
The direct corolation is stated very simply and plainly in the final question: Are repuplicans and McCain willing to give amnesty to the rich coroporations (which lobby FOR them) and not willing to give it to those who have no money and are doing whatever it takes just to prove basic essentials for their families?
It's not a matter of trying to prove hypocracy with "misleading agendas", but more a matter where political leaders interests TRUELY lie. The blanket excuse of protection wears thin.
scallywagthepirate - That's a relevant point, however I still disagree with the method used in this video to convey the very valid point you mentioned. I realized an argument is exemplified but from the comments left here is clear that there is some ambiguity. Clarity in point is equally as important as the message itself. Also its better not to provide nay-Sayers with any unnecessary fodder to dispute that message. Just to be clear myself though, I do agree with you.
Hard to believe that anyone STILL supports Obama... it just shows they're really retarded.
postalmeter 6 months ago
"LIB-WUL VIEW-WA PWESENTS..."
That RETARDED kid's voice is so fucking annoying, it just shows how moronic he is.
postalmeter 8 months ago
@postalmeter Good point
keys1320001 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@postalmeter "That RETARDED kid's voice is so fucking annoying, it just shows how moronic he is."
pat yourself on the back for attacking a child...real big of you.
next you might actually try to make a point...or is that too much to ask?
C0ct0pusPrime 7 months ago
@postalmeter
It's his daughter... asshole.
Captain0Newman 6 months ago
Comment removed
postalmeter 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Captain0Newman
I bet her pussy tastes nice :D
postalmeter 6 months ago
The second I hear that annoying little-kid voice "da viewa pwesenth" I know it's an idiotic video and skip it; he always says something insipidly stupid.
SouthParkBear 8 months ago
LET ME WATCH COLBEEEEEERRT
Chardong 11 months ago
Hard working poor people looking for jobs can't "contribute" to mccains campaign.
dsdougharty 11 months ago
if i live to my late 90's, i'm going to make a phone call to some random person and say everything your not allowed to say over the phone, just to see if they do anything.
Baseball5030 1 year ago
@Baseball5030 i've done it...nothing happened
IIIMPULSE 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuk obama too
younges69 1 year ago
So you want information released about resent wire-tapping,
Get in line; I've been waiting decades for secret files on WW-II
to be released and that ended 65 years ago,
uzijohn 1 year ago
'Everything has changed---but our way of thinking' [A Einstein]
GrimlyFiendishJr 1 year ago
Im a democrat, but your voice is super annoying. stop making political points, anyone informe enough to look up these clips or watch colbert doesnt need your spin on things.
logan646 1 year ago
McStain is a progressive republican... Obama is a progressive democrat.... Bush was a progressive republican... MORE GOVERNMENT MORE SOCIAL INSANE LAWS MORE AUTHORITARIAN RULE.... vote out democrats and republicans! vote in Libertarians and third party canidates!
Z0mgZ0mbies 1 year ago
@Z0mgZ0mbies calm down man. And to be honest, a vote for a libertarian is just a wasted vote....they aren't going to be gaining any power any time soon
moreoreos123 1 year ago
If the police can track and capture a terrorist/rapist/child molester/murderer/etc by listening to their phone calls and reading their emails, more power to them. I hope they use those tools. I doubt the police are going to break down my door just to "see if I'm doing anything illegal."
kevin15776 1 year ago
@kevin15776
theres already a system in place to allow for that. it's called getting a warrant!
pyr666 1 year ago
@kevin15776 Oh yeah? You know how many people are on the watch list just because they have spoke out against the government? Ill put up a link to a video from a journalist who shows how america is getting awfully close to the nazi laws to keep their people under control.
thongdongalong 1 year ago
@kevin15776 "If the police can track and capture a terrorist/rapist/child molester/murderer/etc by listening to their phone calls and reading their emails, more power to them ... I doubt the police are going to break down my door just to "see if I'm doing anything illegal."
You'd have loved Soviet Union back in the day then.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
I have absolutely nothing to hide so i don't care. they can listen to all of my phone calls and read all of my emails. If it help make the US safer, they can even look in my underwear drawer. I could not care less. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens is a totally different issue.
kevin15776 1 year ago
@kevin15776,
If you've got nothing to hide then televise the next time you masturbate.
11111011 1 year ago 3
@kevin15776
Thats the worst attitude about your rights one can have.
Why even have warrant laws, so police can just walk in with guns, just to make sure you arent doing anything illegal. "If you dont have anything to hide, why try to hide anything?" is missing the point, and the reason why we have rights.
Spanky00Cheeks 1 year ago 2
@kevin15776
"those who trade freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both" Benjamin Franklin.
pyr666 1 year ago 5
@kevin15776 You're a poor patriot and a shallow thinker. Warrantless searches aren't even a HAIRSBREADTH difference from a position to plant evidence. And they can be done while you and your children are sleeping in the house.
Men in black carrying firearms into your home while you sleep don't bother you?
What about the privacy of OTHERS who write to you? Visit you? You don't deserve freedom.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore They'll probably be sniffing your wifes underwear next to make sure shes not a terrorist. haha
thongdongalong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kevin15776 "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak up,
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak up,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up,
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."
Freedom of others is your freedom. If they lose theirs, you lose yours.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
the government is the corporate's bitch.
frankystein12 2 years ago
wow, im liberal too, but you guys are a little over the top.
cmillsox 2 years ago
We did not prosecute the telecoms for the same exact thing during the 1970's during the Church and other Committees... We should have nailed them to the wall then, and now. We did it to the German manufacturers that cooperated with the Nazi's....
eaodak 2 years ago
Agreed, the patriot act is unconstitutional. Why has it not been repealed? The Democrats have been in charge for over 6months.
sapofgold 2 years ago
Damn good point. That's how you can tell if a government REALLY wants to change things; if they have the balls to throw out the draconian (or merely bad) laws the last lot put in place....
flankspeed 2 years ago
Because it benefits the government, Democrat or Republican
comptonbrotha 2 years ago
Limitations of freedom come easily but repealing them costs blood.
EnhancedNightmare 2 years ago
Because Republicans are at best tools, and at worst fascists. Or if neither of those gullible or just plain stupid. And sometimes a combination of two or more of all the above.
Since none of these are traits I like in people (in fact their traits I HATE in people) I subsequently don't like Republicans. (Nor other right-wing types.) Of course as a raging misanthrope I don't like to many people to begin with, but I definitly don't like the right-wing even a little.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
flankspeed
you forgot
PRAISE JESUS and
SCIENCE IS FOR DUMBIES
SelinityDawn 2 years ago
I believe the answers to the questions are:
1) Obama's a communist
and
2) They hate us for our freedom.
PS. Nine-eleven!
flankspeed 2 years ago
The rantings of the truly insane....
eaodak 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a fantastic idea. Stop posting Colbert clips to get yourself views. Noone cares what you think, welcome to the internet.
Ethiylas 2 years ago
This video is months old, I know, but the answer to the question is this - Republicans are in lockstep with corporations because they both aggregate wealth to themselves together, while hard working poor immigrants supposedly take wealth out of their pockets. Furthermore, if those hard working immigrants get citizenship, they would vote Democrat.
hypnometal 2 years ago 3
you say this like democrats aren't in lockstep with corporations.
nilhy 2 years ago 2
To an extent they are, but generally, Democrats are much more friendly to the working class, and to immigrants in particular, which is why Republicans fear them, because pro-immigration policies result in more Democratic votes.
hypnometal 2 years ago
Huh, usually it's conservatives who preach privacy and small government, but now its the Liberals who're defending those ideals, probably because they simply hate Bush with a mad fury, throwing punches at him like a wounded animal, blindly lashing out at shapes and colors...
Remember:
ACLU=Bad
NRA=Good
frenchstudentA 2 years ago
actually liberals aren't preaching those ideals. You do know about the massive spending bill i'm assuming (which was pushed by Liberals) which in fact increases government size. watch the news. Also why would the liberals want a smaller gov. because they hate Bush? that doesn't come close to making sense considering he decreased the size of the gov.
nilhy 2 years ago
ACLU=Good
NRA=Bad
Gun owners of america=Good
Bush=Criminal/Corrupt Dumb ass
Cheney = Evil
American Liberals = Pussy politically correct hedonists
conservatives = pervasive ignorance and unruled passion
tonyac42 2 years ago 3
Bush actually wasn't corrupt at all
nilhy 2 years ago
Uh, yeah he is. Not that Clinton or any democrat is not corrupt as well. For example, the no bid contracts given to Dick Cheney's company Haliburton to maintain Walter Reed Army Medical Center and then left vets in shitholes.
tonyac42 2 years ago
Bush was too stupid to be corrupt but he still managed to pull it off
mystishae17 2 years ago
that doesnt make sense
nilhy 2 years ago
it's like being horrible at baseball but you manage to hit a home run. It doesn't mean your good it just means you got lucky, so Bush was too stupid to be corrupt but he still managed to pull it off. You must be a conservative?
mystishae17 2 years ago
fUCK BUSH
Glenboy21 2 years ago 20
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Europeans are so "lucky" to be able to engage in sodomy with their men in the open, in a European setting as Darwinists push their collectivist agenda through the courts.
ThingsBetweenTimes 2 years ago
So you're a homophobic, creationist, Ayn Rand reader?
ctvwr 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fear not small potato.
ThingsBetweenTimes 2 years ago
???
ctvwr 2 years ago 4
Ayn Rand is only read by literary fans and intellectual conservatives. Both are a rapidly dying bread, unfortunately for the latter.
tonyac42 2 years ago
it's read by libertarians as well. I remember reading the book when i was 15 or so after reading Orwell's 1984. I found myself rejecting much of Rand's Philosophy by the time i got around to reading Huxley's "Brave New World" as i had more of inclination to accept the "Trade-off" mechanic between collective cooperation and individual freedom.
I would never consider Ayn Rand's idea's of merit equitable with intellect, as most of the book was simply "wishful thinking".
truemonolith 2 years ago
well that is true, but I am not a fan of political labels because I have spent hours looking for what mine would be and the closest thing I could find is Geolibertarian Socialist, which is not a concept most would understand. Orwell is interesting when it comes to politics, because he was a Socialist, but at the same time he wrote the book that helped halt totalitarianism, which is the end result of most socialist states. Personally I see no hope for ending the "class struggle"
tonyac42 2 years ago
Socialism is an economic principle. Libertarianism is a social principle.
You could be both.
Most conservatives in the US are more Authoritarian than liberals, and its the liberals in the US that appear to be pushing for smaller government or not to increase the size of government.
truemonolith 2 years ago
if you read adam smith, socialism and smith's "a system of perfect liberty" share common goals and similar thou not identical tactics. "Capitalist" usually means corporatist, mercantilist and imperialist. In the us most libertarians advocate the most unaccountable extreme tyranny of private power under a banner of anti-statism. I see liberty, equality and justice as three principals that require each other.
tonyac42 2 years ago
actually both are economic and social and you cannot be both. You can't minimize AND maximize sate control at once genius.
Neither Rep. or Dem. are authoritarian. the liberals are not pushing for a smaller gov. what would make you say that? everything you said was complete bs
nilhy 2 years ago
urm nope.
Socialism is economic, because it emphasizes a people directed approach to economics. This can be done in any number of ways, such as the application of Keynesian economics as is done in the US, or regulation, or subsidisation (which is also done in the US, see the republican military model).
Libertarian is a statement on states involvement in social issues, in the sense that libertarians believe individuals can handle social isssues (which isnt always true).
truemonolith 2 years ago
Also, democrats, atleast in the last 20 years, have been less inclined to increase government, in comparison to Reagan, H.W Bush and W. Bush who all increased the size of government and spending running under the guise of "fiscal conservatism".
The last fiscally responsible president the US had was ironically, Bill Clinton, and prior to that, Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was responsible for the 92% tax rate).
truemonolith 2 years ago
I like Anne Ryand, but of course Orwell and huxley bring way more havoc, way more realistic Obligatrial Futureshock.
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
I asked jimmy urine of Mindless Self Indulgence if he got the band's name from Atlas Shrugged and he told me i should get a prize cuase no ones ever asked him that....maybe you're right. im aliterary fan btw. People dont read books any more? My friends do...
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
Revisionists & non-readers compensate for their ignorance by forwarding the premise that nothing of significance happened before their time. Literature's great works were written before the advent of the Beatles.
ThingsBetweenTimes 2 years ago
Yes, because a ban on gay marriage makes every single gay person vanish!
And approving gay marriage all of a sudden gets rid of public decency laws, amiright?
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
There's no more of a ban on homosexual "marriage" than there is on eating children or sewing your eyelids to your eyebrows. The concept of men marrying one another is so absurd as to be unworthy of consideration within the canon of law.
ThingsBetweenTimes 2 years ago
Actually, I am sure there is a "ban" on eating children. Either as descrating a corpse, murder, or something of the like.
As for sewing your eyelids to your eyebrows, it is not illegal, but it WILL get you to a psychiatrist.
Homosexual Marriage however, does not qualify as either radical action.
Why? Legal Marriage only gets you some benefits, and thus does it really matter what gender the married couple is?
and before you pull out the "then how about marrying litte children" card,
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
There's no ban on eating children specifically as there can't be a law to cover every perversion. Homosexual marriage is right for you.
ThingsBetweenTimes 2 years ago
You still go to jail for eating a baby though (as I mentioned before). Regardless, Homosexual marriage is nowhere near eating a baby or sewing your eyelids shut.
Why? Hm, let's see, eating a baby involves having a dead baby at hand (and if it isn't dead, then it is assault, among other offenses) and the eyelids thing is a form of disrespect to yourself.
HM does not fit the bill, as it involved the respect of two people and a LEGAL compromise. Explain to me how this is in the same level.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
Homosexual marriage would be by 18 or over individuals who legally understand what they are doing, not the case with 5 year olds.
KirbiesandYoshies 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
jews n' niggers
BrendanIsCool 2 years ago
dude, do you get money everytime someone, clicks on the ads that popup?
juanvalentin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do You Really Get Your Info From Colbert?
If we Do Not Wake Up We will all be SLAVE of Big Government.. I Don't care if your a Dim or Rep
The Problem with Socialism is Sooner or Later
You Run Out of Other Peoples Money..... If You Think Thing Are Bad Now Just Wait Until The Government Runs Every Thing..... WhoPaysNow We All Pay....
WhoPaysNow 2 years ago
Hey Cash Cow...
You were lead by the nose, and the country into a ditch for 8 yrs while Bush looted the treasury for his war, his friends at Haliburton, Wall Street and Main St. Where was your outrage then?
And Socialism? The schools, fire and police are socialist organizations according to your definition. You're a slave already if you've ever used any of these gov't run, socialist services. I know you didn't use the school option...
bookish01 2 years ago 33
hahahah pwn'd.
unityrover 2 years ago
LOL.
Where do people get the idea that state control is socialism? Loosely defined, it simply means public control over important economic institutions that affect the public. If you interpret the state to be a publicly controlled institutions then state control may be seen as socialism, but MANY people who self-identify as socialists do not make this connection, for example anarchists.
ctvwr 2 years ago
Um..socialism means state control(not public control) over the distribution and production of goods. look it up.
nilhy 2 years ago
socialism is worker control of the means of production and their method of distribution.
tonyac42 2 years ago 3
Funny that socialists describe it in broad terms much as I defined it going back to the coining of the term and the earliest socialist organizations. Look it up.
ctvwr 2 years ago
@bookish01 hahahaha quality, i love americans with sense.
thongdongalong 1 year ago
straber..... Your just another ignorant fuck that doesn't care about any one else but your self; and swallows and enjoys every bit of bullshit the bush administration gave you. (you're so scared you call your self a patriot) No one ever mentioned giving " radical extremist dick heads" the legal permanent residency or as u call it "amnesty" we are talking about immigrants that want the hard working jobs slobs like your self don't want because it requires lifting a finger.
aeternuslibertas 2 years ago
Where did you ever get the notion that ACLU is self-hating? It would seem to me that, just the opposite, they truly are the only ones (often) looking out for Citizens' rights
saysomethingalready 2 years ago
They're so fanatical.
thehoaxbuster 2 years ago
Is this a set up for a punchline? How fanatical are they?
More likely this is the limit to which you've gone over this issue in your mind. It's only the constitution don't give it too much thought or anything.
stopthehatechild 2 years ago
Those crazies, fanatically defending our rights. Bunch of moon bats m i rite!
spleenblender 2 years ago
LOL the ACLU what a joke.
thehoaxbuster 3 years ago
In what way is the ACLU fighting for citizen's civil liberties being "a joke"?
saysomethingalready 2 years ago
Because their idea of civil liberties is one sided.
Valetudo21 2 years ago
I'll bet all you whiners pay taxes, which makes you part of the government you bitch about. As Henry David Thoreau said, "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail."
JohnHolmes3000 3 years ago
Thoreau was a beast, he didnt pay taxes during the Spanish American war. But whats an alternative? A former IRS head said he could not fing a law in which you are required to file an income tax; He hasnt in years. He also quit.
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
@primalsincerity84
Regarding tax: What is your understanding of the 16th amendment?
Also, by Anne Ryand, I assume you mean Ayn Rand?
Aaberg123 2 years ago
Very valid point, sir; I spoke too broadly. There is no specific law that states anyone is required to file a 1040 tax form.
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so u rather protect the civil liberties of some radical extremist dick head that doesn't even have citizenship that comes here just to destroy america U WANT TO PROTECT THERE RIGHTS SCREW THAT THE NEXT TIME ANOTHER 9/11 HAPPENS COME AND TALK TOO ME ABOUT THESE ASSHOLES "CIVIL RIGHTS" WHO PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA OR WHEN ONE OF UR LOVED ONES IS DRIVING OVER A BRIDGE AND ONLY god KNOWS WAT CAN HAPPEN!!!
strawberEfieldz4ever 3 years ago
So the simple fact that is Unconstitutional mans nothing to you?
DracoRincewind 3 years ago
Sorry. I went to write
"So the simple fact that it's Unconstitutional means nothing to you? "
DracoRincewind 3 years ago
"Meant" -just not my night :)
DracoRincewind 3 years ago
Destroy America? Anti-right movment is the less american think today. And look:9/11 happen in 2001 and it does 2998 death and 6291 injured.
It still not happening often: The one before was twice in 1995 if my memories is good. Before it was 1993 (twice again), then 1984 and 1983.
So, it's not happen often, it's not a lot of death (Comparaison: Rwanda in 1994: 800000 death) and I'm game to paid the price for more liberties.
therrydicule 3 years ago
wow you sound like Palin and McCain when they talked about "another holocaust". It's been what, 4 or 5 years? Find something new to justify your wars american pig.
DirectXControl 3 years ago 3
But of course the death of any other human in any other nation means nothing to you, am I right? So long as it doesn't affect you it makes it right? You make me sick, seriously.
ADDKyuubiNaruto 3 years ago 4
To strawberEfiedz4ever
Don't you know that if we destroy our own civil liberties, we would be doing the work of radical extremists FOR THEM?
It's the liberal america that these assholes hate. And the more we destroy ourselves this way the more we begin to resemble these Ultra Intolerant Anti-liberal Terrorists.
As the saying goes, who needs terrorists when the government is bent on destroying what the country stands for?
earthypig 3 years ago
destroying what? a nation full of people to scared or too dumb to Commit to Anything? Tell ya what...Lets start our OWN collection of intelligent people to discuss both world and US events. What will we as a group do you ask? that is for the group to decide.
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
joe biden is all for the patriot act. its something that liberal media stations like msnbc and cnn dont want you to know. he loves these government agencies such as the fbi and will allow them to get rid of the meaning "privacy" for the government being allowed to search up on you as the U.S. citizens.
nateindahood777 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god dam i want to kill myself when i hear your voice
ZOMGBRBICECREAMTRUCK 3 years ago
Just.. do it then?
WoWaddict3d 3 years ago 2
then stop watching him? lol what kind of lame thing to say was that
christmasdnc 3 years ago 2
Go ahead.
Aaberg123 3 years ago
LOL at 1:59 Steven Colbert is flipping us off
RoyMustang298 3 years ago
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
That sound familiar to anyone else?
nwcstledrinkr 3 years ago
Because they are criminals. Because the american government favors big business profits, because those profits turn into political donations, which then because political obligations to make them more profits, and the circle of US politics keeps on turning. Land of the free my ass. You people are bought sold and paid for, and you don't even get it.
jeffjohnrog 3 years ago
its not the government that favors big businesses and such, its the people who run our government that favor the big businesses. we should look more into who we elect as our leaders of our nation if we enjoy our freedom. our government was built on this saying to be true forever in our govenment, "by the people, for the people, and of the people, of the United States." watch more closely who you decide to run your life as a citizen
nateindahood777 3 years ago
I agree, it makes me sick that my government runs this way.
trouble37 3 years ago
What I don't understand is the Government can wiretap phones if they get warrent. Why don't hey just get a warrent? They are in the Bush Adminstration and could get a Right-Wing Judge to give them a warrent. Man I would hae to be weird tapped then humilated and found out I can't sue AT&T when I did nothing wrong.
hmmyeah 3 years ago
because then it would be recorded who recieved a wiretap.
eddtheman070 3 years ago
No offense on your second question, Bush was the one who originally proposed amnesty to illegal immigrants.
iniksbane 3 years ago
Rate his videos guys - we gotta get more views!
shanewaz08 3 years ago 4
Great video LV.
Keep up the accurate research.
Pretty soon you'll become "LibertarianViewer" ;)
RosstaPharian 3 years ago
thats what i said till I got my new car which I drove up to montana to start a furniture company. It was okay until we had to move the company to new york
marker853 3 years ago
What about Mccain?
GabrielWebster1 3 years ago
For a while this election season, it looked as if Hillary Clinton would become president. Now it seems that Barack Obama has a strong chance. Hillary could very well be his veep.
Would the conservatives here have trusted President Hillary with this kind of power? Do they trust a President Barack with this kind of power?
Well guess what: he's going to have it. Whatever power was handed to Bush, Obama and every president after him will have.
SailorBarsoom 3 years ago
Who knows. What I do know is that if Hilary gets the VP pick... I'm going to think twice about electing Obama. I really don't like Clinton.
Obama = Dedicated, thinker, easygoing
McCain = Stalwart, knows the ropes, more experience.
I personally agree with Obama's views more, but if he gets Hialry as VP... man I dunno..
iwebber88 3 years ago
So, iwebber88, are you going to vote for Obama since he has pretty much chosen his VP pick? Me personally, I really like Obama, but I like the fact that McCain isn't an idiot either. I dissagree with lots of people in that both candidates suck. IF they think that, then why not look into third parties?
RickRollNation 3 years ago
Still not 100% on it...
iwebber88 3 years ago
craziness won't impeach them. So, I'm not sure if this government is guilty of being unchecked any more than any other previous administration. I seriously doubt that the Bush administration would misuse their authority in such a way; after all, why would they do it? There is neither reason nor proof to substantiate that claim, to my knowledge. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
dasloan 3 years ago
When McCain says he doesn't support Amnesty, does he mean Amnesty International?
BadNeighbour 3 years ago
Hi Neighbor,
Here in the states, when politicians state they are against amnesty, they are usually refering to undocumented immigrants, people who's only "crime" is looking for work.
colibriverde 3 years ago
I don't mean to butt in but you seem like a cool, reasonable person to talk to but they are also guilty of breaking our immigration laws, thus they should be punished, right?
dasloan 3 years ago
How is Nancy Pelosiy supposed to care about protecting Americans from her boyfriend in the White House?
Ishpeck 3 years ago
My congressman sent a letter back telling me he would think about my letter. Then voted for amnesty. These people don't listen or care anymore.
meape 3 years ago
so, aren't they trying to protect the corporations from lawsuits that result from government ordered wiretaps? After all, if the government told them to do it in the interest of national security, why should people attack them with lawsuits? Besides, people act like the wiretapping is such a invasion of privacy, it actually did help foil a few plots (Brooklyn Bridge, German etc.) Seems like a small price to pay if any. And just who are these poor working people you mention at the end?
dasloan 3 years ago
The confidentiality of our private communications is in the hands of the telecom corporations. They have an obligation to protect our privacy. Allowing people to listen in on private conversations without a warrant is serious invasion of privacy.
How would you feel about your landlord allowing police or other authorities into your home without a warrant, allowing them free access to your home whenever they felt like it and without your knowledge? Would that also be okay with you?
colibriverde 3 years ago
I'm not sure that's the same thing. Frankly, the wiretapees are probably not listening to your conversation unless you do have terrorist affiliation in which case its your own fault for doing that in today's climate. It's hardly as Orwellian as people are led to believe. Plus, these "illegal wiretappings" or whatever are actually thwarting terrorist plots, so if placing harmless wiretaps are going to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones, I'm okay with that, are you?
dasloan 3 years ago
"...probably not listening to your conversation unless you do have terrorist affiliation..." You seem to have a lot of trust that the authorities are just going to do the right thing. I don't think you can just trust those in power to not abuse their power. I think it is important that we have judicial oversight. I believe they should be required to show they have a good reason to listen in.
colibriverde 3 years ago
Why would they not do the right thing? What evidence is there to support that this current edition of the US government would abuse their power when there is a much greater threat at stake? It seems too many of us are stuck in Watergate/conspiracy theory mode and don't want to see that by and large, the government wants to protect us, and I believe that terrorist threats are a good reason to listen in on those who have such connections. If you're not one of them, then they aren't listening.
dasloan 3 years ago
How can you possibly trust the Bush administration after all the lies and scandals?
Even if the current administration was beyond reproach, history shows that those given power without any type of regulation will abuse that power. That is why the framers of our constitution designed our government to have three branches, so there would be checks and balances and power would remain with the people and not with one individual.
colibriverde 3 years ago
What proof do you have of such lies and scandals? And you are probably right, those with unchecked power are more likely to abuse their power, good thing we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights which to my knowledge the current administration has yet to illegally bypass, despite the misinformation generated certain far left sources. After all, if they were guilty with proof, don't you think they would be out of office by now instead of being reelected? Even Pelosi, despite her cont
dasloan 3 years ago
I get my information from NPR (National Public Radio), L.A. Times, The Nation Magazine, The Guardian, and "The Lies of George W. Bush", by David Corn- to name a few sources. So, dasloan, where do you get your news from?
colibriverde 3 years ago
Similar sources (Radio, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Houston Chronicle, Politico, etc.). I try to balance my biased media (there is no unbiased media). Your list looks pretty balanced too, I might try some of yours, especially the Corn book, I'm sure its a very objective account of the Bush administration, and The Nation, self-described liberal bias. Not to mention that horrible things the LA Times said about Tony Snow in the obituaries. Sounds like you're all set.
dasloan 3 years ago
watergate led up to an assassination of a president....thats not call for alarm? thegovernmentdoesnt have a good track record of doing the right thing.
primalsincerity84 2 years ago
I knew this was going to be terrible when he said "hard working poor people looking for work" in the beginning. One: McCain was talking about illegal immigrants. Sure they may work hard, but please come over legally and play by the rules. Two: I have no problem with the government tapping phones if it means putting criminals in jail and getting vital information on terrorist and criminals. It's not like the government will tap your phone just because they want to. They'll have a reason.
eaglevigil 3 years ago
the problem is that they dont tap only terrorists phones. they tap everyones phones. your phone calls have been recorded and so have mine along with millions of other americans. and the main problem that i have with that other than the obvious breach of privacy is that when you tap millions of phones without warrents how can you sift through all that and find the actual terrorists.
rollindts44 3 years ago
Wow eagle, you ARE a deep thinker. Governments NEVER abuse their power, you're so right. I feel so much better. Thanks so much.......
DOUCHEBAG!!!!!
scottn999 3 years ago 2
After the Justice Department scandal, in which it came out that the Department was screening applicants by political ideology and selectively targeting liberals for investigation, how can you justify the position that the government needs more power?
This is ludicrous. There are already procedures in place for expanding police power in emergency situations, and amnesty for the companies that broke the law is just flat out wrong. If you want to comment further PM me.
baseballnolie34 3 years ago
LOL MA BELL BOTTOMS
bakdgreat 3 years ago
The Govt is just having a little harmless fun. The corporations would like you to buy their products, the govt would like you to be mindless and obedient, the handful of rich brats behind the scenes would like you to blame each other, and the little guy next to you would rather not look away from the tube. You are the one who you have been waiting for, No one is coming to your rescue.
jazzyjimbryant 3 years ago
Easy to avoid when you are looking for yourself.
RipperNatas 3 years ago
because "God helps people who help themselves"
Buzztootight1990 3 years ago
i love his voice i want him 2 talk dirty 2 me
texasmama101 3 years ago
Thanks for this. The Democratic leadership, led by the disgracefully compliant Pelosi-Reid team, accepted the immunity bill as a "compromise." What part of the Fourth Amendment is not compromised by this amnesty deal. And the Democrat promise of giving "hard working people" relief comes at the expense of doing whatever corporations and the bushworld they created wish--to those same people.
jgertzma 3 years ago
are people still paying their taxes to this administration?
jonsi317 3 years ago
Hey haveyou guys watched what will affect every youtuber? Viacom is given youtubers usernames, IP adress etc to spy on those on youtube.
Watch the video "Protest Judge Stanton's Viacom Youtube"
It also has a petition in the description, if you want to speak out against your privacy being invade and yourselves being tracked.
Pass it on so other youtubers know whats going on
KARStarla 3 years ago
That's an important issue, but nothing even remotely close to as important as the U.S. government destroying the Bill of Rights.
alphasimian 3 years ago
Yeah I know about them doing that but I didnt know about this
KARStarla 3 years ago
Really though, no one's privacy is being invaded. No law exists to prevent this kind of data collection. Furthermore the information is ONLY being used to prove that copy righted material is in fact being viewed. The manner in which Viacom is able to use the acquired data is very finite and specific. Any other use will be deemed illegal and Viacom will be held in contempt. No one should really be concerned. An IP address is as private as a telephone number.
arcrendition 3 years ago
Yeah, I forgot, we live in the US where corporations respect our privacy and the law. Here, I thought otherwise, I guess I was wrong.
p2umpkin 3 years ago
its just like a conservative to resort to name calling
how old are U silenthillbilies ?
J575 3 years ago
McCain supported amnesty for illegals I heard it out of his mouth myself.
TribeTPaul 3 years ago
Ahhh, I see what the issue is now. Its taking McCain's comment "I've never supported Amnesty" completely out of context and then using it to claim McCain is a hypocrite. That's clever but its very misleading and dishonest just to serve this video's agenda. This completely corrupts the validity and credibility of this entire video. This is just the same game that the conservative plays in bashing liberals. LiberalViewer... shame. Please do better.
DarkRendition 3 years ago
DarkRendition,
I was neither "dishonest" nor "misleading" because I clearly explained the context. I said:
"John McCain DOES support amnesty, but not amnesty for the hard working poor people coming to America to look for work, of course, but rather, McCain supports amnesty for the huge telecommunications corporations whose lobbyists are so close with McCain."
So, I HONESTLY explained the kind of amnesty McCain supports and the kind he opposes
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 3 years ago
Vote Nader/Gonzalez!
Nader is in the majority on most issues so just vote for him.
nowellian 3 years ago
funny thing is, there is an ad in the top right of my screen telling you to donate $25 to mccain.
KappenandFriends 3 years ago
KappenandFriends -
Me too, its not a coincidence.
DarkRendition 3 years ago
yay
KappenandFriends 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
3 things, 1. get a life, 2. stop making videos and 3. u sound like a fag "liberal viewer". ps: how old are you?
silenthillbilies 3 years ago
Funny... LiberalViewer uses a clip of McCain talking about immigration amnesty... and then goes on to talk about corporate amnesty... Ok... I used to sorta-like his vids... but is it just me or does this not make much sense?
RickRollNation 3 years ago
it only doesn't make sense if you take it out of context in otder to find something wrong with it.
what the author here did was show that McCain is against amnesty for immigrants, but is for amnesty for telecom corporations.
maybe you just didn't watch the video? try watching it, it makes total sense.
nickqt 3 years ago 2
I think he watched it - I think he's refering to the fact that playing material unrelated with a break off into a subject with the the use of a word in a different context makes a ridiculous arugment.
iwebber88 3 years ago
it does he's talking about how mccain is more for amnesty for the rich not the immigrants
rell127 3 years ago
Its pretty easy to understand, its a reference to stark moral difference in policy that McCain supports.
On the other hand I can see some confusion as to exactly what the aim of this video is. Is it denouncing Amenesty to Telecom or McCain's position of Immigration, or some blending of the two to bash both subjects.
DarkRendition 3 years ago
The direct corolation is stated very simply and plainly in the final question: Are repuplicans and McCain willing to give amnesty to the rich coroporations (which lobby FOR them) and not willing to give it to those who have no money and are doing whatever it takes just to prove basic essentials for their families?
It's not a matter of trying to prove hypocracy with "misleading agendas", but more a matter where political leaders interests TRUELY lie. The blanket excuse of protection wears thin.
scallywagthepirate 3 years ago 2
scallywagthepirate - That's a relevant point, however I still disagree with the method used in this video to convey the very valid point you mentioned. I realized an argument is exemplified but from the comments left here is clear that there is some ambiguity. Clarity in point is equally as important as the message itself. Also its better not to provide nay-Sayers with any unnecessary fodder to dispute that message. Just to be clear myself though, I do agree with you.
arcrendition 3 years ago