Attach money to the issue and gov't jumps on it!

All that is generated then is not resolution, but division.

Gov't was never meant to be a profit making corporation at the expense of the people, only enforce and protect the will of the people, protect the nation, and collect tariffs on trade. Taxes were collected from member states of the corporation, businesses that sprung up within it, and international trade partners thru tariffs on commerce.

The Commerce Clause, enforced by Admiralty Law, never meant to absorb or override state or Common Law except by vote of the individual states, adopted by the vote of its citizenry.

They were never meant to collect taxes from the population to study the mating habits of earthworms!

Gov't has slowly eroded personal liberties and freedoms by usurping powers not in its mandate or original design under the Constitution.

Power corrupts, and money corrupts absolutely!

That is the reason nothing ever changes for the better, and we are blessed with only 2 parties allowed to play in the game..... no profit in individual freedom!

That is but a part of the problem. The real problem stems from the people themselves. Just how many times have you heard the phrase, "they should do something about this or that"? Well, just who is "they"? Once that equation is figured out, the problems will start to be resolved.

why would they change anything? the people don't matter to them, and they are getting rich... why change their honeypot?

No, I didn't need that tripe in the first place.

Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube.



This writer says much.

""If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you'll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It's extremely rare to carry on any sort of debate with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe,9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the evidence posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can't understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you'll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.""

""So, why do conspiracy theorists love YouTube?

1. In most cases, it's honestly the best they can do.

Conspiracy theories are, by definition, fringe beliefs. The most common shopworn theories these days 9/11 was an inside job, global warming is a hoax, the Illuminati is out to impose a New World Order on us, etc., etc.are completely unsupported by empirical evidence. No reputable scientists or engineers believe that 9/11 was a controlled demolition. (Steven Jones and Judy Wood are not a reputable scientists, and Richard Gage is not a reputable engineer). The only studies showing that climate change is not happening or is not caused by humans are tainted by association with energy lobbies or other political agendas, and the supposed scientific bases for these viewpoints are not accepted in mainstream science. Therefore, by definition, you will not have pieces of peer-reviewed scholarship to point to that support conspiracy theories. The only support you can find is from some source where content is user-contributed, and thereby not vetted by any type of editorial process whatsoevermeaning, an open and unregulated community of ideas, which is the definition of what YouTube is.

Example: you can't find a legitimately peer-reviewed scientific paper claiming that the World Trade Center towers were blown up. Papers of that nature simply don't exist. But type in 9/11 controlled demolition into YouTube and you'll bring up thousands of hits. Anybody can put up a YouTube video about anything. Unless it flagrantly violates the terms of service enough to be taken off the net, it will remain there for as long as the contributor wants it there, with no factual vetting of any kind. This is great if you think your cat playing the piano is really funny; chances are others will find that funny too. It's not great when you're trying to prove a scientific or factual point. Conspiracy theorists don't have much evidence to choose from, and the richest bed of that sort of material is going to be an open source, user-contributed interface. Ergo, YouTube is custom-made for them.""

""2. Most conspiracy theorists are unaware of, or do not appreciate the importance of, non-Web-based, factually vetted sources of information (put another way, the difference between primary sources, secondary sources and tertiary sources).

It sounds like a cliche, but it is largely true that most conspiracy theorists, at least those active on the Internet, are white males between the ages of 18 and 30 who either don't have or are not yet finished getting college degrees. Let's face it, the term peer-reviewed journal doesn't come up much in this demographic, and far be it from most of these people to set foot into a respected university library. For these people, the Internet with its ease of information retrieval is the paradigm source of knowledge. Need to find something? Google it. Need to learn something about a particular subject? Type it into Wikipedia. ""

continued ....


""Note, however, that even Wikipedia has a gatekeeping function. There are editors and moderators who constantly view and vet the articles that are posted there. So even a tertiary source like Wikipedia has some editorial control.

Here's the point: open-sourced Web services like YouTube don't even rise to the level of tertiary sources! YouTube lacks even the minimal gatekeeping functions that Wikipedia has. I can post a video claiming that Ringo Starr was the first President of the United States. As long as it doesn't violate the terms of service, which have nothing to do with factual accuracy, no one will take it down.

Conspiracy theorists, however, typically don't understand the hierarchy of various source materials. The difference between YouTube and the National Archives is completely lost on most of them. Consequently, YouTube is a source as equally credible as the National Archives,in fact, possibly even more credible because the gatekeeping function of source materials is often mistaken, in conspiracy theorists eyes, with conspiratorial meddling or other chicanery.

3. Conspiracy theorists cannot distinguish between credible and non-credible sources.

This point is closely related to the above one. Because theres no difference in a conspiracy theorist's eyes between any two sources based upon the nature of those sources, they have no way of telling whether a source is true or false. David McCullough, a respected academic historian with decades of credentials, is no more reliable a source than David Icke, an ex-football player who believes that the world is controlled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens. John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists in recent history, is no more credible than bloviating radio talkshow host Alex Jones on matters of economics. This is why conspiracy theorists generally interpret any questioning of the credibility of their sources as an ad hominem attack, because to them credibility is irrelevant. Taken to an extreme, this idea results in the bizarre belief that a YouTube video can be just as true and credible as a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in a nationally-respected journal.

However, because the world (and especially the Internet) is filled with tidal waves of contradictory information, as human beings we must necessarily have a mechanism that separates truth from ********. No one believes absolutely everything they hear, even people who are extremely gullible; it's just that the truth-versus-******** mechanism of gullible people is out of whack compared to that of the non-gullible. In evaluating the credibility of a particular piece of information, conspiracy theorists do not ask the questions that most of us would ask.Where did this information come from? Who did it start with? What supports it? Is the source credible?because their shallow understanding of epistemology does not result in that sort of analysis. Too often, conspiracy theorists thought processes center around the content or outcome of a particular piece of informationDoes it support the official story or does it support my theory?or a set of associations, usually negative, with the disseminator of the information itself.Is it a government spokesperson saying this?""

continued ....


""4. Presenting an argument in video format is much more emotionally satisfying than presenting an argument in any other way.

Motion pictures have been used for propaganda purposes since the technology was invented. The phenomenal success of movies to make a political, social or racial statement was demonstrated first with D.W. Griffith's 1915 film The Birth of a Nation, and the extraordinary power of movies to persuade people continues today.

Packaging an argument in a video format, especially if it has interesting visuals and a good soundtrack, will carry your argument further and faster than it would travel by any other means. Conspiracy theorists are always recruiting, and using video is one of their most powerful tools. Consequently, it makes sense that their weapon of choice would be YouTube.

To a large extent, conspiracy theorists probably don't even realize the immense power of the medium that they seem to choose (unconsciously, perhaps) as their preferred means of communication.

5. Conspiracy theorists often exhibit an anti-intellectual bias, and because of their positions are forced to attack, ignore or explain away the legitimacy of expertise. YouTube plays into these biases perfectly.

Here is the real meat of this blog: conspiracy theorists are usually anti-intellectual. They have no patience for the opinions of experts usually because those experts do not support conspiracy theories and they're often contemptuous of credentialed experts in the first place. Consequently, conspiracy theorists invest a tremendous amount of thought and effort into denigrating or explaining away the views of those who know more about the subjects they're talking about than they do.


Conspiracy theorists hate experts and intellectuals mainly because they are forced to. Few if any real experts in anything engineering, economics, metallurgy, political science, or history agree with conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists know that this is a major obstacle in their attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Honestly, if one structural engineer with questionable credentials says that the World Trade Center towers were dynamited and 99 real structural engineers say that theory is ********, which side are most people going to believe? Consequently, conspiracy theorists have to tear down experts. They do this mainly by denigrating the real value or relevance of expert opinion, which usually means casting aspersions on expert status in the first place. This has two effects: first, they think it blunts the attacks of experts on their theories, and second, it elevates non-expert opinion into the same realm as expert knowledge.""

""Conclusion

Conspiracy theorists suffer from a number of profound misconceptions regarding how the world works, how knowledge is gathered and verified, and what constitutes proof and evidence. If they did not suffer from these misconceptions, they would not be conspiracy theorists, because the fantastic and unsupportable nature of their theories would be self-evident upon careful review of the real evidence. YouTube, being open-sourced user-generated content with no editorial or gatekeeping function, has become conspiracy theorists prime source of information precisely because it's open-sourced with none of the gatekeeping functions, such as peer review or editorial processes, that make other sources of information reliable. This coupled with an inability to tell good sources from bad ones plays directly into conspiracy theorists conceits that they have special knowledge, that expert opinion is overrated or irrelevant, and that they can change the world simply by spreading a couple of YouTube links and opening people's eyes.

But conspiracy theorists reliance on YouTube is yet another illustration of why their worldview is intellectually bankrupt and incapable of attracting serious mainstream attention. When your evidence regarding something is a YouTube video from Prison Planet or Infowars, you're telegraphing to the world that you've got nothing better to support your position. Dont be surprised when people don't take you seriously.""


http://muertos.blog.com/2010/05/28/why-conspiracy-theorists-love-youtube/

It really does'nt matter much. Dems and republicans play this good guy bad guy game often. Consider the "COMPROMISE OF 1877. The Compromise of 1877 is arguably the most devastating single event in the history of Blacks in America. That is when a group of politicians both democrats and republicans convened at the Wormley Hotel in Washington, D.C, to attempt to resolve the deadlocked Presidential election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samual Tilden. They agreed that if Hayes were awarded the presidency, he would remove the federal troops protecting the ex-slaves in the south, and the former Southern slaveholding class would be free to return to power and establish new forms of slavery without federal oversight or control.
This is the exact point in American history when whites determined that the Black man and woman would forever be a second class citizen in all aspects of American society.
After 12 years of "emancipation" Blacks were returned to virtual slavery, and assigned to permanent political, social, and economic inferiority. A Jewish congressman from Louisiana, William M. Levy, gave the speech that convinced lawmakers that this wicked act that scholars call the "GREAT BETRAYAL"of the Negro people was the best policy for America.

In reality, America is the one who needs to be reintroduced to factual American history, Blacks and Whites alike. Both parties play political games in front of the people while behind closed d
oors they know that the American people are often distracted by desperate housewives and all of the mental opiats fed to them daily. While they manuever to meet their own agendas on the backs of the people.

Then why ask?

still believe the War Between The States was fought to free the Slaves?

Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty. Blacks had made great strides in developing private businesses, but KKK targeted these businesses for destruction as in Rosewood FLA. and Tulsa {The Black Wall st.}Okla. and many other places. Blacks lost billions in investment dollars to Whites through these acts of TERRORISM.
Black businesses were often uninsured because of the racist policies of American insurance companies, so the destruction of a Black business was totally unrecoverable. Whites had no such disabilities in growing their businesses.

These facts are kept from both Blacks and Whites by whites both dems and repubs.

If you understood my post you would not ask such a question, it was simply written where anyone could understand, I think.

With the creation of the NAACP and King the separatist movement of the Negro was cast into cement.

wasn't about me not understanding!
All that War was about is the arrogation of more power to the "Central " Federal Government!
Your People weren't the only ones losing out!
We see the Chicken coming home to roost now with an invasive ,powerful Federal Government sticking it's Nose where it don't belong,making Rules and Statutes they have no right to make!

There is much controversy over the Compromise of 1877 but I would disagree with you summation of the exact point in American History that blacks were relegated to second class citizens. They had already been relegated to the lowest class of citizens even upon their arrival, as slaves.

But the 13th Amendment in 1865 promoted all slaves, blacks and others, to a higher class of citizens in that they could no longer be owned but where still not thought of as equal, especially the blacks.

But the issue was finally resolved in 1868 with the passing of the 14th Amendment. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 was amended to remove all other persons definition for taxes and representation. Congratulations, blacks could now pay taxes and think they were represented by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.

But what about equality? Well Section 1 of the 14th Amendment addressed that, not in elevating the blacks as much as it equalized all as citizens of the United States:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So now, instead of rights, citizens have privileges and immunities. But that created a huge problem that a little know Statute addresses:

"15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (section 1), enacted July 27 1868

Chap. CCXLIX. ---An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States

Whereas the rights of expatriation is a nature and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the right of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the government thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Thereof.

Be it enacted by the Senator and the House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision, of any officers of is government which denies., restricts , impairs or questions the rights of expatriation , is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government."

And what effect could this have following so closely on the heals of the ratification of the 14th Amendment?

Liberals will latch onto that tit Conrad till they suck us dry.

Amen brother, amen.

You can also thank the Panthers for many closures of Negro businesses.

Especially by the Democrats. But otherwise they are but the red team and blue team trying to win the next power grab and lining their pockets.

In 2010, it cost on average just under $9 million to win a Senate seat that pays $174,000 annually. Somebody owes somebody a heck of a lot and I would dare to guess it isn't the ole taxpayer.

Dang, I'm glad I'm not a taxpayer and feel that I can adequately represent myself without having to give up my freedoms.

So you are saying you have no clue. Oh it was about power, but not in the manner you imply. The one good thing about Lincoln was his total disdain for the bankers, which caused his demise but that is another story.

The whole power struggle was the Industrial North against the Agricultural South. And the rest as they say is history.

ActuallyActually you raise a valid point at least in regards to the war, however, the COMPROMISE assured that southern bankers would control the mechanics of the newly enacted CONVICT LEASE LAW that effected the former slaves in that it insured their return to virtual slavery, while the slave holding class would in essence impower the not yet formed Federal Reserve. These assets coming from the CONVICT LEASE LAW and its enterprises would eventually finance the Federal Reserve in less then 25 years. Both profits from the center of the world economy, namely cotton and the many companies profiting from the CLLs would eventually create the FED. Yes, others were losing out, however, those who gained were all whites. But still a good point.