Everyone needs to watch this video

12357…18

Comments

  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Do you truly contend that people in the US have access to less information than the Chinese due to censorship?

    Funny, but I don't recall you asking me this question before.

    I'm only aware of Youtube being blocked. I don't know what else is.


    I can't watch Youtube which requires javascript, and because javascript won't work through a proxy I can't watch Youtube vids. Other than that, I'm not aware of anything I can't access.

    As for the mainstream news here, I'd say it's just as innocuous and unchallenging as the mainstream news is in the U.S.

    If people want information they look on the internet. That's the same here as everywhere else.

    Is that a yes or a no?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    um, try all of them.

    1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
    2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
    3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
    4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
    5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
    6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
    7. Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
    8. Injuring the reputation of state organs;
    9. Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.[8]

    So you're saying that 1,2,4, and 7 are o.k in the U.S?

    Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    wow guys, thanks. I was really curious to read about who was more free - China or the US - as opposed to what I originally posted in the topic. At any rate, I hope you guys do enjoy this article (more specifically, soul and jlew): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8015763.stm
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    Byrnzie wrote:
    You should be ashamed that your tax money contributed to the lives of over 400 Palestinian children being snuffed out.



    Every american should. Its AT LEAST 400.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.

    So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Are you trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
    soulsinging wrote:
    Nowhere did he ever say anything remotely like this here or anywhere else, and you know it.

    The ongoing problems in the region: i.e, settlement expansion, i.e, ethnic cleansing. Get it?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.

    So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?

    People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.

    As to inciting racial hatred:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/18/ ... oledo_ohio

    Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    call it whatever you like. the land is in dispute. two parties want the same land.

    What I call it is irrelevant. The law says the land belongs to Israel. Therefore there is no dispute. Another example of you trying to justify Israel's messianic ethnic cleansing campaign. Get it Soulsinging?

    jlew24asu wrote:
    I NEVER SAID THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SETTLEMENTS. I made this bold and red so you understand.

    You see, this is bullshit. You've been defending, and making excuses for, Israel's crimes from day one. Who do you think you're kidding?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Hamas is part of the blame for the ongoing problems in the region by their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Are you trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
    soulsinging wrote:
    Nowhere did he ever say anything remotely like this here or anywhere else, and you know it.

    The ongoing problems in the region: i.e, settlement expansion, i.e, ethnic cleansing. Get it?

    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    Yes, they are. Aside from the terrorism one, the rest are all ok in the US.

    So planning to overthrow the government is o.k, along with inciting racial hatred? Are you sure about this?

    People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.

    As to inciting racial hatred:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/18/ ... oledo_ohio

    Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.

    Looks like you're right:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
    'The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.

    As to inciting racial hatred:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/18/ ... oledo_ohio

    Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.

    Looks like you're right:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
    'The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

    Yup, never doubted me for a second. I damn well better know this shit after 3 years of law school! :)
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    soulsinging wrote:
    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not o.k for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.

    You're joking right? Jlew has been defending Israel's crimes on this message board for as long as I can remember. He try's to justify the occupation and the settlements by saying that the land is disputed. He supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. The list goes on and on.

    Edit: If this new board allowed me to dig up his earlier posts then I'd have a field day.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    soulsinging wrote:
    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
    You're focusing on "killing" Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing consists of more than just killing Palestinians, it also consists of stealing their land and displacing them - something jlew has defended. jlew's tactics in arguing this issue is actually very clear than he's trying to place plenty of the blame on the Palestinians, to the point of even distracting people from the real issue, ie. Israel's stubbornness to abide by international law.

    by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    soulsinging wrote:

    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.

    its par for the course for him. if I dont agree with everything he says as well as be a staunch supporter of Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians, I somehow become a defender of Israel.

    I'll say it loud and clear (yet again) for the ignorant few who refuse to listen...


    I DO NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    _outlaw wrote:
    You're focusing on "killing" Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing consists of more than just killing Palestinians, it also consists of stealing their land and displacing them - something jlew has defended. jlew's tactics in arguing this issue is actually very clear than he's trying to place plenty of the blame on the Palestinians, to the point of even distracting people from the real issue, ie. Israel's stubbornness to abide by international law.

    ONE MORE TIME - I DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND ISRAEL.

    and guess what, HAMAS is part of the problem too. you know why? I'll repeat myself yet again...because they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
    _outlaw wrote:
    by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."


    guess what genius. during WWII, the land in France WAS under dispute. that must mean I support the Nazi's right!!!!!!
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not o.k for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.

    You're joking right? Jlew has been defending Israel's crimes on this message board for as long as I can remember. He try's to justify the occupation and the settlements by saying that the land is disputed. He supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. The list goes on and on.

    Edit: If this new board allowed me to dig up his earlier posts then I'd have a field day.


    you fucking people are a joke. I'm not trying to justify anything Israel does. you just cant seem to grasp the definition of the word dispute. thats not my problem.

    and I didnt support the war against Lebanon. how about you stop making shit up, its really starting to piss me off. we've been cool until now. now you crossed the line with outright lies about me.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Looks like you're right:

    you mean you finally took your head out of your own ass?


    ***standing O***
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:

    No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.

    its par for the course for him. if I dont agree with everything he says as well as be a staunch supporter of Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians, I somehow become a defender of Israel.

    "You're either with us, or you're with the [Israelis]"
    -Byrnzie

    Come to think... that sentiment seems kinda familiar...
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you fucking people are a joke. I'm not trying to justify anything Israel does. and I didnt support the war against Lebanon.

    If the mods hadn't deleted all of your earlier posts I'd drag up about 100 comments of yours that prove my point. You've been defending Israel and attempting to justify it's crimes for as long as I've been posting here.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you mean you finally took your head out of your own ass?
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you fucking people are a joke.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    what a hypocrite


    Just the same old Jlew.

Categories