Thursday, June 26, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Because of this Situation
This is what is happening. For the answer as to why Ads can get pulled from videos by YouTube, here's what they explained in a help forum: "If your video contains sexual or sensitive content you may not see any ads. We currently do not run ads on web pages that are determined to contain potentially sensitive content by our automatic contextual advertising system. On such pages, no ads may appear. We understand that not all pages automatically categorized as sensitive will contain such content, but currently, we're not able to manually alter the system to allow it to show ads. If you'd like to ensure that your video pages show ads, please keep both the video content - as well as the video title, description, and keywords - family safe"
"We currently do not serve ads on restricted content or videos with misleading or sensitive meta"
See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/117739?hl=en
This is the Title of the video in question: I Wouldn't Assume Obama was Motivated by Morality
Here are the keywords I used: Noam Chomsky,Taliban,President Obama,Afghanistan,terrorists,Bowe Bergdahl,Benghazi,Prisoner swap,bin Laden,al-qaeda,Constitution,Saudi Arabia,war,Osama Bin Laden (FBI Most Wanted Fugitive),Morality (Idea),Barack Obama (US President),White House,Venezuela,Cuba,terrorist,Gaddafi,Syria,Ari Fleischer,Rolando Bosc,Luis Posada,Taliban in Afghanistan,presidential power,legislation,US Constitution,civilians,rebel fighters,Obama and Afghanistan war
Here is the video info and the transcript: Here are two comments that I posted on my most recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMVcK19YKbo&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQDZoXfe_QuwVRUMrtUqEIo Don't post comments while refusing replies. And there are several things wrong with your comment. The Taliban are not the same as al-qaeda. Seems like you are confusing the two. If you are going to call the Taliban "terrorists," then call the United States terrorists because the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan at the time the United States illegally attacked them in a war of aggression. No, just because a government doesn't extradite someone you demand them to, doesn't mean you have the right to attack the country and start a war to overthrow that government! That's freakin' crazy! By that logic, Cuba or Venezuela, for example have a right to attack and try to overthrow the government of the United States because the U.S. refuses to extradite known terrorist it is harboring. "One of the world's leading terrorists is Luis Posada, who was involved in blowing up a Cubana airliner which killed 73 people and lots of other terrorist acts. He's sitting happily in... Miami, and his colleague Rolando Bosch also a major terrorist... is happily there... Cuba and Venezuela are trying to extradite them" There is nothing "terrorist" about capturing an enemy soldier that is part of a force that has illegally invaded your country. What do you want the Taliban to do? Who put the notion in your head that prisoner swaps were wrong?
And as Gameplay Bangladesh points out, the Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. with conditions civilized countries would find reasonable and honorable to meet, provide evidence. But the U.S. is controlled by unreasonable and dishonorable people who violated the rights of people here and abroad. They also make a good point about how the Taliban was offering to hand over bin Laden before 9/11. And again, on reasonable conditions. You can see White House spokesman Ari Fleischer being questioned about that, well before 9/11. Yes. Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments? Let me take that and get back to you on that. And here's my response to someone that was making the argument that Obama was motivated by morality. I wrote that, I wouldn't assume Obama was motivated by "morality" when he took the action he did. I also wouldn't assume that Obama is telling the truth about "saving someone's life" because we don't have proof, all we have is a claim made by Obama. We really don't know if the White House claim about U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl's health is true or if the Taliban was really threatening to kill him. Remember, Obama has lied in the past. Here is an example of Obama's "I got to to do this action before it is too late" excuse: "The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with "no mercy," but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi's threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away." Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide." I really find it very hard to believe that Obama took the action he did because of morality. If he was moral, he wouldn't have continued and expanded President Bush's immoral foreign policies. So how do you square that with claims of morality? He was extremely eager to bomb Syria when he had no right to as a US President, he didn't need to act like it was his decision to bomb or not because it wasn't, in the United States system a US President doesn't' have a right to start a war. He has shown a pattern of contempt for the US Constitution's restrictions on presidential power, that is what I was trying to communicate with the clip at the end where he arrogantly declared he wasn't going to give a straight answer whether he was going to bomb Syria. And I still haven't heard a direct response to Brianna's question. If Congress fails to authorize this will you go forward with an attack on Syria? Right, and you're not getting a direct response. Think about retrofitting Voice of America through legislation to
mandate establishing a public institution for all Americans. And you can share this video with other people using the YouTube tools below.
http://www.patreon.com/RepresentativePress
"We currently do not serve ads on restricted content or videos with misleading or sensitive meta"
See https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/117739?hl=en
This is the Title of the video in question: I Wouldn't Assume Obama was Motivated by Morality
Here are the keywords I used: Noam Chomsky,Taliban,President Obama,Afghanistan,terrorists,Bowe Bergdahl,Benghazi,Prisoner swap,bin Laden,al-qaeda,Constitution,Saudi Arabia,war,Osama Bin Laden (FBI Most Wanted Fugitive),Morality (Idea),Barack Obama (US President),White House,Venezuela,Cuba,terrorist,Gaddafi,Syria,Ari Fleischer,Rolando Bosc,Luis Posada,Taliban in Afghanistan,presidential power,legislation,US Constitution,civilians,rebel fighters,Obama and Afghanistan war
Here is the video info and the transcript: Here are two comments that I posted on my most recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMVcK19YKbo&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQDZoXfe_QuwVRUMrtUqEIo Don't post comments while refusing replies. And there are several things wrong with your comment. The Taliban are not the same as al-qaeda. Seems like you are confusing the two. If you are going to call the Taliban "terrorists," then call the United States terrorists because the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan at the time the United States illegally attacked them in a war of aggression. No, just because a government doesn't extradite someone you demand them to, doesn't mean you have the right to attack the country and start a war to overthrow that government! That's freakin' crazy! By that logic, Cuba or Venezuela, for example have a right to attack and try to overthrow the government of the United States because the U.S. refuses to extradite known terrorist it is harboring. "One of the world's leading terrorists is Luis Posada, who was involved in blowing up a Cubana airliner which killed 73 people and lots of other terrorist acts. He's sitting happily in... Miami, and his colleague Rolando Bosch also a major terrorist... is happily there... Cuba and Venezuela are trying to extradite them" There is nothing "terrorist" about capturing an enemy soldier that is part of a force that has illegally invaded your country. What do you want the Taliban to do? Who put the notion in your head that prisoner swaps were wrong?
And as Gameplay Bangladesh points out, the Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. with conditions civilized countries would find reasonable and honorable to meet, provide evidence. But the U.S. is controlled by unreasonable and dishonorable people who violated the rights of people here and abroad. They also make a good point about how the Taliban was offering to hand over bin Laden before 9/11. And again, on reasonable conditions. You can see White House spokesman Ari Fleischer being questioned about that, well before 9/11. Yes. Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments? Let me take that and get back to you on that. And here's my response to someone that was making the argument that Obama was motivated by morality. I wrote that, I wouldn't assume Obama was motivated by "morality" when he took the action he did. I also wouldn't assume that Obama is telling the truth about "saving someone's life" because we don't have proof, all we have is a claim made by Obama. We really don't know if the White House claim about U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl's health is true or if the Taliban was really threatening to kill him. Remember, Obama has lied in the past. Here is an example of Obama's "I got to to do this action before it is too late" excuse: "The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with "no mercy," but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi's threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away." Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide." I really find it very hard to believe that Obama took the action he did because of morality. If he was moral, he wouldn't have continued and expanded President Bush's immoral foreign policies. So how do you square that with claims of morality? He was extremely eager to bomb Syria when he had no right to as a US President, he didn't need to act like it was his decision to bomb or not because it wasn't, in the United States system a US President doesn't' have a right to start a war. He has shown a pattern of contempt for the US Constitution's restrictions on presidential power, that is what I was trying to communicate with the clip at the end where he arrogantly declared he wasn't going to give a straight answer whether he was going to bomb Syria. And I still haven't heard a direct response to Brianna's question. If Congress fails to authorize this will you go forward with an attack on Syria? Right, and you're not getting a direct response. Think about retrofitting Voice of America through legislation to
mandate establishing a public institution for all Americans. And you can share this video with other people using the YouTube tools below.
http://www.patreon.com/RepresentativePress
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Friday, June 06, 2014
Monday, June 02, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
