Kerry Cassidy banned from live broadcasting on YouTube

[Cardillac]

very brief statement from Cassidy (we can be sure more to come):

https://projectcamelotportal.com/201...ng-on-youtube/

so what took YouTube so long?- in my humble estimation YouTube/Google is shooting itself in the foot; the more YouTube censors the more people will way-side YouTube and go to other sources-

Larry

[Omni]

Posted by Cardillac (here)
very brief statement from Cassidy (we can be sure more to come):

https://projectcamelotportal.com/201...ng-on-youtube/

so what took YouTube so long?- in my humble estimation YouTube/Google is shooting itself in the foot; the more YouTube censors the more people will way-side YouTube and go to other sources-

Larry

The problem with that is youtube has the best branding, best platform design (not counting the censors and mass banning mechanisms), the most viewers, etc. There is no great alternative that I have found to upload films. Youtube is basically a monopoly.

[Cardillac]

@Omnisense

"The problem with that is youtube has the best branding, best platform design (not counting the censors and mass banning mechanisms), the most viewers, etc. There is no great alternative that I have found to upload films. Youtube is basically a monopoly"

yes, agreed; but the purpose of my starting this thread is the continuos cencorship of alternative opinions by the almost monopoly of YouTube; do we want monopolies?- freedom means having choice; once all of our lives are constricted by only one news source we're cooked and there's no way out of the pan-

take care-

Larry

[RunningDeer]

“I have been banned from Live Broadcasting on my main youtube channel because of a recent interview regarding FALSE FLAGS WORLDWIDE with Ole Dammegard and Dr. James Fetzer! (Now reposted to Bitchute and Steemit!). This is politically motivated and violates my rights as a journalist to freedom of the press and free speech!!  Please support our work.  My income has been severely affected by this ban!

Please note I am still able to upload pre-recorded videos to my channel I believe.  Which I will continue to do.”

I pulled up Kerry’s SocialBlade.com stats to keep track in realtime on the effects of the YouTube policy change. It appears Kerry’s stats haven’t been strong for awhile. The Blue Avian flu and others from that genre may have caused many to turn away from such outlets.

Main channel (Jagbodhi) - subscribers and views







PROJECT CAMELOT TV NETWORK LLC - subscribers and views

[Cardillac]

Paula, you continue to be absolutely amazing- please keep up your tremendous research/work!

SWAK!

Larry :-)

[ArizonaSilver]

She proclaims that her free speech and rights are being abused. But although I have not researched YOUTUBE ownership, I assume it is a private company. People seem to often act as if they have a right to use a private company's platform regardless of what they say as if it is guaranteed in the Constitution. A private company is allowing the public to post videos, making money supposedly from advertisements. But there is no government guaranteed "right" to do so.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

There is no law granting YOUTUBE the only right to produce a platform for the public to post videos. Any other company that thinks they could make a profit by doing so has every legal right to do so. Therefore, YOUTUBE is not a monopoly whatsoever.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
There is no law granting YOUTUBE the only right to produce a platform for the public to post videos. Any other company that thinks they could make a profit by doing so has every legal right to do so. Therefore, YOUTUBE is not a monopoly whatsoever.

Monopolies are not determined solely by exclusive legal control.

Monopolies can occur by a variety of means, such as legal, financial, force, and technical.

There is a long standing tradition, across many lands and many centuries, of ensuring that control of important community resources does not fall into the hands of any individual or organization that leverages that control to extort payments, control or surveillance out of proportion to the reasonable costs and profits coming from that resource.

[Flash]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
She proclaims that her free speech and rights are being abused. But although I have not researched YOUTUBE ownership, I assume it is a private company. People seem to often act as if they have a right to use a private company's platform regardless of what they say as if it is guaranteed in the Constitution. A private company is allowing the public to post videos, making money supposedly from advertisements. But there is no government guaranteed "right" to do so.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

There is no law granting YOUTUBE the only right to produce a platform for the public to post videos. Any other company that thinks they could make a profit by doing so has every legal right to do so. Therefore, YOUTUBE is not a monopoly whatsoever.

My understanding: A monopoly is when a private company has all or about all the market in a given domain of expertise or sales and by its sheer market power and shares is in fact stopping any potential worthwhile competition from taking hold in the same market. And this is irrelevant regarding constitutional rights or regarding privacy rights of enterprises.

A monopoly is regarding market shares and possibilites to have competition or not in the given market. Google and Youtubes are definitely monopolies.

The Oxford dictionary definition:


monopoly

noun (Plural monopolies)

1The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

‘the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting’

More example sentences

1.1 A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.

‘passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies’

‘France's electricity monopoly, EDF’
More example sentences

1.2 A commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.

‘electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies’

More example sentences


1.3[usually with negative] The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.

‘men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love’

Therefore, in the present market state, internationally and nationally (within every country), Youtube is a monopoly. Google as well on some aspects. To stop being a monopoly, it would have to be broken up as the Bell company was in the 1990's to give a chance to other companies to take hold on the market.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
She proclaims that her free speech and rights are being abused. But although I have not researched YOUTUBE ownership, I assume it is a private company. People seem to often act as if they have a right to use a private company's platform regardless of what they say as if it is guaranteed in the Constitution

When it comes to federal law, there is the US Constitution, and then there are statutory laws that do not carry the same weight but are still considered law. This is why federal laws can be struck down as unconstitutional, because the Constitution is the standard to which federal (and now state) statutory laws are held.

Have you ever studied the "trust buster" president, Theodore Roosevelt? He busted up lots of monopolies and became famous for it. He didn't do it by the authority of the Constitution, but by the authority of statutory laws.

Also, while the government can and does go after monopolies from time to time, it's also possible to authorize monopolies and allow them to continue. The catch? They are considered public utilities and regulated by the government. Local trash collection companies are an example. Local governments often award monopolistic contracts to trash collection companies to collect all the trash in an area, and in exchange that company has to follow regulations established by the government on rates, etc.

It's possible that rather than bust YouTube up as a monopoly, it could conceivably be made into a public utility regulated by the federal government. Not that that's necessarily any better because it would mean the government would still be allowed to censor stuff on there (unless we get that "Internet Bill of Rights"). It would probably be in everyone's best interest if it were in fact busted up into multiple companies that were forced to compete, even though that would take away the convenience of having everything available on a single platform.

[ArizonaSilver]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
She proclaims that her free speech and rights are being abused. But although I have not researched YOUTUBE ownership, I assume it is a private company. People seem to often act as if they have a right to use a private company's platform regardless of what they say as if it is guaranteed in the Constitution

When it comes to federal law, there is the US Constitution, and then there are statutory laws that do not carry the same weight but are still considered law. This is why federal laws can be struck down as unconstitutional, because the Constitution is the standard to which federal (and now state) statutory laws are held.

Have you ever studied the "trust buster" president, Theodore Roosevelt? He busted up lots of monopolies and became famous for it. He didn't do it by the authority of the Constitution, but by the authority of statutory laws.

Also, while the government can and does go after monopolies from time to time, it's also possible to authorize monopolies and allow them to continue. The catch? They are considered public utilities and regulated by the government. Local trash collection companies are an example. Local governments often award monopolistic contracts to trash collection companies to collect all the trash in an area, and in exchange that company has to follow regulations established by the government on rates, etc.

It's possible that rather than bust YouTube up as a monopoly, it could conceivably be made into a public utility regulated by the federal government. Not that that's necessarily any better because it would mean the government would still be allowed to censor stuff on there (unless we get that "Internet Bill of Rights"). It would probably be in everyone's best interest if it were in fact busted up into multiple companies that were forced to compete, even though that would take away the convenience of having everything available on a single platform.

What possible reason would the government give for breaking up YOUTUBE? Everyone goes there so you can easily search and find videos. If the government forced a breakup, what would that look like? Suddenly, YOUTUBE must create fake independent companies and arbitrarily move customers to them whether those customers (like me) want to or not? How would companies offering the exact same product compete? I suppose with price wars as the long distance companies did in the early 90's (how many are left from the battle? Not many).

I worked for the Bell System in California for 30 years. Due to a law suit by MCI (now long gone - a company whose strategy was to sue everyone else in the field until they bled dry. MCI truly was an unethical pirate ship of a company and the entire telecommunications industry rejoiced when MCI went down) in the early 80's, the Bell System was split up into individual regional companies. But in California there were already over 23 independent telephone companies, often in rural areas and in Southern CA where General Telephone thrived. Billions were spent to placate the other companies who all piped into the Bell System network to transfer calls (other companies did not set up independent networks throughout the nation). AT&T was split from the "baby bells". But they shared the same physical technical buildings. Often, the only difference was a different color piece of tape on a machine that designated it AT&T versus Baby Bell.

To make a long and incredibly expensive story short, it is now 2018 and most of the nation is again one Bell System under AT&T. The Baby Bells competed and the strongest (SBC) survived and began swallowing up the weaker Baby Bells (like Pacific Bell where I worked). Finally, SBC bought AT&T and the return to the Bell System was completed. Only a couple regions are still separate, perhaps Southern Bell and upper East Coast. It just does not make sense to split up every monopoly. The human effort involved in this was incredible and it made little sense. I predicted back in the early 1980's that it would eventually all come back together in time. No other nation would allow vital telecommunications assets to be so splintered. And I was right.

So what? Well, I think splitting up YOUTUBE would be equally senseless. What makes Kerry think that if she was banned on YOUTUBE that she would be allowed on YOUTUBE CLONE 1 or YOUTUBE CLONE 2? Is the argument that the other providers would have lower standards of conduct? Oh, by the way. She is not being shut out of YOUTUBE. She simply cannot air LIVE content. Once a live show is done, she can post it on YOUTUBE. This sounds like a warning message and penalty by YOUTUBE. There is plenty of anti-government, anti-Trump, anti-right wing stuff on YOUTUBE, along with the right wing counter strike.

I cannot judge Kerry's case since I haven't researched it, but the nation is very divided now, and to claim that events where people died were all fake is cruel if not dangerous. I am not justifying YOUTUBE policies but I do not think it is part of some evil nefarious government plot. Yet your answer to all this is to put YOUTUBE under a government department that could directly force local YOUTUBE companies to comply with "local community standards"? Can you imagine the difference between what Americans would find on YOUTUBE companies located in the Deep South versus California? And it seems bizarre, if you think YOUTUBE is being covertly "encouraged" to shut down controversial YOUTUBE providers by the government, yet you want the government to blatantly have total legal control of YOUTUBE content? The mind boggles.

Should we break up Facebook into several smaller separate communication platforms? Facebook, with all its many faults and data sharing, works fantastic for people who simply wish to share pictures of their lunch (groan) or 10,000 selfies, all alike. You don't have to go to lots of different platforms to find a long lost friend. This would become a tower of Babel. I suggest that what is much more likely is that technology will eventually razzle and dazzle people and they will simply migrate to something better. After all, who uses MYSPACE anymore?

Just a final example: I realize how paranoid people are nowadays, but I am part of a medical group that has its own hospitals, doctors, labs and other facilities. They have an online medical records system which I can access at any time to check appointments, my medical record (what the doctor actually wrote during a recent visit) and lab results. This is extremely convenient. Recently, I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Test results were on-line so that the surgeon I selected to remove the thyroid could pull this all up instead of me trying to get paper copies to take to him. Can you imagine if each doctor just kept their own records that no one else could see except through some laborious xeroxing procedure for a lot of money, taking weeks?

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
What possible reason would the government give for breaking up YOUTUBE?

Here's some historical background on Teddy Roosevelt's presidency:

Theodore Roosevelt promoted a public relations image of being a trust buster. He faced political pressure to act against the trusts. In fact, TR was not a trust buster. Roosevelt held a consistent position: there was a power larger than the power of even the biggest, wealthiest business organization. That superior power was the power of the people, and of the public interest, as represented in the presidency in particular and the executive branch of the federal government in general.

Roosevelt believed there was a "public interest" that skilled leaders, such as himself, with the aid of expert advice, could ascertain and apply to the affairs of business. In applying the "public interest" to "the trusts," TR was surprisingly consistent for a politician.

Roosevelt believed that when a business grew big it was not necessarily bad. Bigness might mean simply that a firm had bested its rivals through superior efficiencies, prices, and service. Having superior efficiencies, prices, and service might well require bigness, as in the case of a railroad providing service through an extensive system across a wide territory.

The point for Roosevelt was that the government should enforce a "rule of reason" on business. If a firm grew through reasonable means, then the government should not attack it. However, if a firm grew through unfair practices, then government should enforce its power in order to protect the innocent. The Democrats accused Roosevelt of sparing the trusts to win campaign funds from big business. These attitudes came to play during Roosevelt's administration, first in establishing the Bureau of Corporations and then in the Northern Securities case.

Railroad regulation was an example of the sort of regulation that Roosevelt believed was required for business in general. In 1886 Congress had created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the railroads, but had not granted the ICC much power. Under Roosevelt's leadership, Congress enlarged the power of the Commission.

1. In 1903, the Elkins Anti-Rebate Act forbade the carriers from giving large and powerful shippers rebates from the published freight tariffs. This law allowed the railroads, in effect, to administer their rates. The ICC enforced this statute.

2. In 1906, the Hepburn Act granted the ICC the power to set maximum rates. No longer could the railroads simply enforce rates without challenge. Now shippers could challenge rates before the Interstate Commerce Commission and hope that, after careful investigation, they might be lowered.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions...rusts/roosevel

The two examples of specific laws above, aimed at the railroad industry, were statutory laws passed by Congress. Note that these laws are not amendments to the Constitution. All they require is passage through Congress just the same as any other statutory law, and Congress passes lots of them every year.

In fact Congress wouldn't necessarily have to pass any law at all, there are already so many on the books, and especially when combined with federal agency regulations, which are de facto law as established by federal courts, and can easily be used to enforce past court decisions regarding freedom of expression in public spaces. If YouTube was so much as considered as a "public space," for which an argument could easily be made (there are no registration requirements to view its content, etc.), then it could immediately be put under the scrutiny of federal law as established by past court precedents.

One example: Coal mining companies and other such large businesses used to own entire towns and pay their employees in scrip. There was once a court case because the company owning one of these kinds of places argued that it was all private property and so free speech didn't apply. The courts ruled otherwise, that even though the property was technically private, the company was nonetheless abusing the rights of those who lived and worked there. There are other cases relevant to this issue you could find online, where private property has not been a valid excuse for stifling free speech in certain circumstances.

Everyone goes there so you can easily search and find videos. If the government forced a breakup, what would that look like? Suddenly, YOUTUBE must create fake independent companies and arbitrarily move customers to them whether those customers (like me) want to or not?

They wouldn't have to necessarily break YouTube up. It would just be one option to generate competition and variety based on past precedent.

On second thought I don't think you could really do that for YouTube, if only because it costs the company a tremendous amount of money for bandwidth hosting all of those millions of videos, and they would probably be in the hole if it weren't for Google dumping money into them.

Wall Street Journal reports that YouTube isn't even profitable: https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers...ube-1424897967

How would companies offering the exact same product compete? I suppose with price wars as the long distance companies did in the early 90's (how many are left from the battle? Not many).

Well since YouTube isn't profitable anyway, and stifles its competition by offering a product at a price that doesn't even generate a profit (undercutting any startup that would actually be trying to make a profit), we don't know what real competition would even look like. There are a few other video hosting sites out there but I doubt they are very profitable either, because YouTube destroys any margin for profit. And offering a product below market value to prevent competition is one of the classic arguments that a company is engaging in monopolistic behavior.

So what? Well, I think splitting up YOUTUBE would be equally senseless. What makes Kerry think that if she was banned on YOUTUBE that she would be allowed on YOUTUBE CLONE 1 or YOUTUBE CLONE 2?

By recent trends, platforms which are offering true free speech are growing much more rapidly than the older social media giants that are increasingly censoring everything. YouTube doesn't have to be split up necessarily, but if it were, one likely way to distinguish one service from another would be a lack of censorship, the same way that Gab serves as a growing alternative to Twitter. If Trump stopped using Twitter, and Gab was allowed to create a smartphone app (they've been prevented by Apple and Google), Gab would probably already be stomping Twitter into the ground and Twitter would likely go bankrupt. Trump alone is estimated to be worth two or three billion to Twitter, and they were haemorrhaging users terribly before he started using it so prominently and getting the platform constant media coverage.

I cannot judge Kerry's case since I haven't researched it, but the nation is very divided now, and to claim that events where people died were all fake is cruel if not dangerous.

I consider censorship of speech more dangerous. Claiming that an idea is dangerous and therefore should be censored is the kind of reasoning of truly authoritarian regimes.

Yet your answer to all this is to put YOUTUBE under a government department that could directly force local YOUTUBE companies to comply with "local community standards"? Can you imagine the difference between what Americans would find on YOUTUBE companies located in the Deep South versus California?

I'm not giving any solutions, I'm just saying how things could conceivably happen based on how monopolies have been treated by the government in the past.

And if you support democracy, why are you afraid of letting Californians and Southerners each have their own standards for content? It's typical of a sort of Yankee imperialism, which applies to the Left Coast as well, that their standards are superior and should be applied universally, and everyone else is just backward and needs to shut up. It's really a very insulting attitude and one of the reasons many people are so polarized against the "blue smears" on the map that want so desperately to regulate the lives of everyone in "flyover America."

Should we break up Facebook into several smaller separate communication platforms? Facebook, with all its many faults and data sharing, works fantastic for people who simply wish to share pictures of their lunch (groan) or 10,000 selfies, all alike. You don't have to go to lots of different platforms to find a long lost friend. This would become a tower of Babel. I suggest that what is much more likely is that technology will eventually razzle and dazzle people and they will simply migrate to something better. After all, who uses MYSPACE anymore?

That may be true, and again, I'm not actually proposing anything here. I'm just saying that there are options at the government's disposal, whether they are ultimately effective or not. Does the fact that a policy ends up being ineffective stop the government from passing it anyway? Often not.

Even if something "better" than Facebook comes out, there are going to be political debates about how much these companies should be allowed to gather on people. The fact that Facebook is in many ways a private intelligence agency is not a trivial matter. It is an issue of national security. They can and do sell that data and share it with foreign countries.

[Joe from the Carolinas]

Posted by Omnisense (here)

Posted by Cardillac (here)
very brief statement from Cassidy (we can be sure more to come):

https://projectcamelotportal.com/201...ng-on-youtube/

so what took YouTube so long?- in my humble estimation YouTube/Google is shooting itself in the foot; the more YouTube censors the more people will way-side YouTube and go to other sources-

Larry

The problem with that is youtube has the best branding, best platform design (not counting the censors and mass banning mechanisms), the most viewers, etc. There is no great alternative that I have found to upload films. Youtube is basically a monopoly.

I started dtube and steemit accounts when this all started happening. They are incredibly frustrating to upload.. constantly having upload errors on videos, requiring hours to upload a 15 minute video... lots of disconnects after 2 hours upload time, rinse and repeat. not worth the time at this point.

bitchute is great as an automatic YouTube channel mirror - good for contingency, still stuck on google though.

While I believe YouTube is a monopoly, it is the most efficient tool available at this point for content creators. I’m looking forward to the day when other alternatives are just as fast.

By the way, Cassidy isn’t kidding about the impact on her income - since YouTube “improved” ad revenue rates last year, most of the large channels are only keeping up with their weekly schedules by getting product sponsors, and, by having superchat revenue. Superchat revenue is basically people paying to have their message stand out in chat.

With YouTube removing this chat feature from her channel, they effectively cut her off from interacting with her own subscribers, and thanks to their algorithm, all of her past videos rank lower in how they are displayed in search.

[MorningFox]

Posted by Omnisense (here)

Posted by Cardillac (here)
very brief statement from Cassidy (we can be sure more to come):

https://projectcamelotportal.com/201...ng-on-youtube/

so what took YouTube so long?- in my humble estimation YouTube/Google is shooting itself in the foot; the more YouTube censors the more people will way-side YouTube and go to other sources-

Larry

The problem with that is youtube has the best branding, best platform design (not counting the censors and mass banning mechanisms), the most viewers, etc. There is no great alternative that I have found to upload films. Youtube is basically a monopoly.

They shut down or buy out any competition, sadly. The design, technology and overall platform is very easy to match and improve on, it's what I do for a living, but any competition to youtube or google simply doesn't get the google coverage it needs to become popular or they simply offer the builders of the competition a large sum of money to give up.

[section9]

One of the reasons the Tech Oligarchy started giving to Politicians so eagerly was to avoid the Sherman Act.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
What possible reason would the government give for breaking up YOUTUBE? Everyone goes there so you can easily search and find videos. If the government forced a breakup, what would that look like? Suddenly, YOUTUBE must create fake independent companies and arbitrarily move customers to them whether those customers (like me) want to or not? How would companies offering the exact same product compete? I suppose with price wars as the long distance companies did in the early 90's (how many are left from the battle? Not many).

...

So what? Well, I think splitting up YOUTUBE would be equally senseless. What makes Kerry think that if she was banned on YOUTUBE that she would be allowed on YOUTUBE CLONE 1 or YOUTUBE CLONE 2?

...

I cannot judge Kerry's case since I haven't researched it, but the nation is very divided now, and to claim that events where people died were all fake is cruel if not dangerous. I am not justifying YOUTUBE policies but I do not think it is part of some evil nefarious government plot.

It can be difficult, ArizonaSilver, to have a mutually beneficial and constructive conversation with someone who is so adamant in holding their position that they have limited ability to genuinely listen to and appreciate the various positions, insights and contributions of others.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
...to claim that events where people died were all fake is cruel if not dangerous.

Hi there, and welcome! The above caught my attention, and I have an honest question about it. Can you be more specific about what Kerry is claiming here ("events where people died were all fake"), and with regard to which events? For sure, not all reported shooting events are the same.

THX, and much appreciated. I genuinely don't know what Kerry's views are regarding all the recent shooting events, and I'd certainly be interested to know.

[ArizonaSilver]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
...to claim that events where people died were all fake is cruel if not dangerous.

Hi there, and welcome! The above caught my attention, and I have an honest question about it. Can you be more specific about what Kerry is claiming here ("events where people died were all fake"), and with regard to which events? For sure, not all reported shooting events are the same.

THX, and much appreciated. I genuinely don't know what Kerry's views are regarding all the recent shooting events, and I'd certainly be interested to know.

I confess I was referring to the "False Flag" community as a whole, such as the people who go to Sandy Hook and taunt the parents of the dead kids, saying that they are liars and paid crisis actors. I can certainly accept that the instigator of a gun massacre could have been tampered with by nefarious forces, but I do not think that this means that all the dead are not dead but living in a tropical resort somewhere on government pay. There are various factions of this movement. I have met people who simply will not believe that anyone has actually DIED in such a massacre. This reminds me of Holocaust deniers. I have not studied Kerry's position and I admit that since I find her views often quite illogical and wild. In the case of the Parkland massacre, the shooter was well known to everyone. They had gone to school with him for years. He was kicked out for violent anti-social behavior. He got even. Not every WHITE mass murderer is simply mentally deranged or a product of an MKULTRA program while every Arab mass murderer is simply a terrorist. I see racism at work in the way we categorize such people.

Bill, there seems to be a general group-think here that I was not aware of. People seem to pretty much agree on everything. So when I present my views, Paul and others think I am being adamant. I do not accept the agreed upon meme or paradigm. I accept that I am the red nosed reindeer in this community. I honestly don't want to disturb the group hug in any way. So I refrain from posting again except in response to someone who has to have the last word and has to use wild conspiracy theory memes to do so. I assumed this was an open minded community but so far it is a community walking in lock step to a group of assumptions about reality that I don't share. But as I said in my application, I came here to post a well-meaning tribute to Art Bell because I thought he deserved it. Perhaps having done so, I should bow politely and leave now. Buh bye.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

I’ve seen plenty of serious arguments and debates on this forum. Many of them have been rather vicious and personal. So if this forum was designed to enforce groupthink, it failed. Granted there are groups of people who agree on broader issues and it isn’t only arguing around here, but if there weren’t a mix of agreeing and disagreeing, and even a bit of passion involved from time to time, it would be boring and no one would learn anything from each other.

[pyrangello]

I second Bill on stating the facts, Granted there are shootings that are real thing and there have been mass shootings happening from way way back. In regards to sandyhook, there was even a college professor who wrote a book on that incident that said it never happened. One thing is for sure, between go fund me, the united way and the fed govt their was a lot of money paid to all of those involved there to the tune of close to 100 million. Follow the money baby and the agenda in that case.

As for the sensorship issue, Dutchsinse has also stated he thinks his followers count is being manipulated , he just laughs it off. But sure when there is truth hitting home for those who want things covered up and quiet , its very possible for those behind the scenes to tweak things here and there.

[RunningDeer]

Posted by ArizonaSilver (here)
“…there seems to be a general group-think here that I was not aware of. People seem to pretty much agree on everything….

I assumed this was an open minded community but so far it is a community walking in lock step to a group of assumptions about reality that I don't share.

I honestly don't want to disturb the group hug in any way.

…I should bow politely and leave now. Buh bye.”