GoT Cast Shills For Syrian "Refugees" - YouTube Shuts Down Comments

[Ed Stasiak]

Several members of the cast of "Game of Thrones" filmed a clip supporting
the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees intro Europe and YouTube
promptly shut down the comments section, after an overwhelming number
of negative replies from users.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCe0Nz7Ie90

[Barb May]

No Ed, they are soliciting donations for relief efforts, not advocating

"the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees"

And YouTube doesn't shut down comments. The video owner has control over
that and it's far more likely that comments were never enabled.

I checked right-wing web sites to see where you could have gotten this
"spin" on the story and saw nothing, so apparently you came up with this
all on your own. How sad. The refugees are innocent victims who need
help. Do you oppose soliciting donations in order to provide temporary
food and shelter to refugees? Really, Ed? Please don't be a hater.

--
Barb

[David]

More than trolls, more than troll-feeders, it's when regulars just randomly volunteer that they're terrible people is when usenet feels most exhausting.

[BTR1701]

In article <nc98pe$cpg$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Ed Stasiak wrote:
> > Several members of the cast of "Game of Thrones" filmed a clip
> > supporting the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees intro
> > Europe and YouTube promptly shut down the comments section, after an
> > overwhelming number
> > of negative replies from users.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCe0Nz7Ie90
>
> No Ed, they are soliciting donations for relief efforts, not advocating
> "the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees"
>
> And YouTube doesn't shut down comments. The video owner has control over
> that and it's far more likely that comments were never enabled.
>
> I checked right-wing web sites to see where you could have gotten this
> "spin" on the story and saw nothing, so apparently you came up with this
> all on your own.

How disappointing for you that you can't blame your go-to "right-wing
boogeyman" for everything, huh?

> How sad. The refugees are innocent victims who need help.

And then they promptly commit mass sexual assault and demand religious
concessions of the natives in the countries that generously (if not
suicidally) accept them.

[RichA]

The "thumbs down" indicator proves they did suppress free speech by disabling comments.

[Barb May]

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <nc98pe$cpg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:

\> How sad. The refugees are innocent victims who need help.

>
> And then they promptly commit mass sexual assault and demand religious
> concessions of the natives in the countries that generously (if not
> suicidally) accept them.

Gee, couldn't you find a paint brush any broader to smear all refugees
as criminals and a danger to Western Civilization? Thanks for once again
exposing your bigotry.

--
Barb

[Barb May]

Nah, this only indicates that you still don't understand that the
concept of "free speech" has nothing to do with private venues.

--
Barb

[Adam H. Kerman]

Someone will have to explain to me how the sexual perversion bit is
part of Islam. However, if the perpetrators are arrested and charged,
by all means, accomodate their religion... in prison.

It's odd: I don't have the article from "Barb May" in which "she" stood up
for the rights of women not to be groped en masse (and worse). Did you
happen to get it? If you have it at hand, you could do me a favor and
quote from it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barb May <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>>On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 11:12:50 UTC-4, Barb May wrote:
>>>Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>Several members of the cast of "Game of Thrones" filmed a clip
>>>>supporting the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees intro
>>>>Europe and YouTube promptly shut down the comments section, after an
>>>>overwhelming number
>>>>of negative replies from users.

>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCe0Nz7Ie90

>>>No Ed, they are soliciting donations for relief efforts, not
>>>advocating "the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees"

>>>And YouTube doesn't shut down comments. The video owner has control
>>>over that and it's far more likely that comments were never enabled.

>>>I checked right-wing web sites to see where you could have gotten
>>>this "spin" on the story and saw nothing, so apparently you came up
>>>with this all on your own. How sad. The refugees are innocent
>>>victims who need help. Do you oppose soliciting donations in order
>>>to provide temporary food and shelter to refugees? Really, Ed?
>>>Please don't be a hater.

>>The "thumbs down" indicator proves they did suppress free speech by
>>disabling comments.

>Nah, this only indicates that you still don't understand that the
>concept of "free speech" has nothing to do with private venues.

This is an idiotic statement, "Barb May".

Free speech is free speech. It's free speech as a civil right that's
inapplicable to private venues. If ordinary discussion has been
repressed, duh gee, there's no free speech taking place.

[BTR1701]

How many does it take before we can dispense with this "they're not all
bad" bullshit?

No one's saying they're all bad "Barb May". But enough of them are that
it's radically affecting the quality of life and the culture of the
receiving countries.

[BTR1701]

Barb May <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 11:12:50 UTC-4, Barb May wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> Several members of the cast of "Game of Thrones" filmed a clip
>>>> supporting the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees intro
>>>> Europe and YouTube promptly shut down the comments section, after an
>>>> overwhelming number
>>>> of negative replies from users.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCe0Nz7Ie90
>>>
>>> No Ed, they are soliciting donations for relief efforts, not
>>> advocating "the uncontrolled mass migration of Syrian refugees"
>>>
>>> And YouTube doesn't shut down comments. The video owner has control
>>> over that and it's far more likely that comments were never enabled.
>>>
>>> I checked right-wing web sites to see where you could have gotten
>>> this "spin" on the story and saw nothing, so apparently you came up
>>> with this all on your own. How sad. The refugees are innocent
>>> victims who need help. Do you oppose soliciting donations in order
>>> to provide temporary food and shelter to refugees? Really, Ed?
>>> Please don't be a hater.
>>

>> The "thumbs down" indicator proves they did suppress free speech by
>> disabling comments.
>
> Nah, this only indicates that you still don't understand that the
> concept of "free speech" has nothing to do with private venues.

Well, that's a blatant lie, "Barb May".

"Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed a
restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.

Now lie to us some more, "Barb May".

[BTR1701]

I seem to have missed that "Barb May" post as well. Just as I've missed all
the outrage from the usual "New Wave Feminists" who screech like banshees
over the misuse of a pronoun in Twitter, but are strangely silent over the
way women are being routinely abused by Islamists not just in the Middle
East, but in Europe now, as well.

[Barb May]

BTR1701 wrote:
> I seem to have missed that "Barb May" post as well.

Yeah, you "missed" one of the few times I actually agreed with something
you said. That's believable...NOT

From: "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Mass Rape in Cologne, Germany
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:18:13 -0800
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <n6rfcp$rpg$1...@news.albasani.net>

References: <atropos-A52B1D...@news.giganews.com>
<191b385d-4efe-470d...@googlegroups.com>
<atropos-02E812...@news.giganews.com>
<atropos-85A693...@news.giganews.com>
<568fe737$0$27652$c3e8da3$fdf4...@news.astraweb.com>
<FKSdnUMRxeaUsg3L...@giganews.com>
Reply-To: "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com>
X-Trace: news.albasani.net
uzWFdjKfYQTQ6g88NIbwYvHw80rbhONNajeoeBE3JKS/ZvJkzwhrn7UvMTdtCZ/aOwBOrbNwCjNHxjLZBNLpWyq3ffSeWvp/znaNlRPo4UQbkpw0D6F0nfzSWbDIVzFh

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:18:18 +0000 (UTC)

> BTR1701 wrote:
> > I draw the conclusion that 80-some-odd women were gang-sexually
> > assaulted last week on the streets of a city where such things were
> > absolutely unheard of before the German government decided to
> > showcase how "sensitive" and "diverse" it was and import millions of
> > "widows and orphans" against the wishes of its own citizenry. A
> > government that continues to deny there even is a problem and which
> > pressures police and news media to underreport and whitewash
> > incidents like this so as to not give critics ammunition; a
> > government that accuses anyone who draws attention to the issue of
> > "hate speech"; a government that blames victims for their own
> > assaults because they were out on the streets inciting 3rd-world
> > barbarians with their lack of burkhas and visible hair; a government
> > that is advising parents that their children should no longer be
> > free
> > to play outdoors or wear shorts or skirts because that might
> > "inflame
> > the refugees"; a government that expects German culture to bend,
> > bow,
> > and break in favor of refugee culture whenever the two come into
> > conflict.
> >
> > What conclusions do you draw? That everything's a-okay and these
> > "widows and orphans" have brought nothing but gumdrop-shitting
> > unicorns to the German countryside?
>
> I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that you are right this
> time.
> We should take a lesson from what's happening in Europe and try to
> avoid
> making the same mistakes.

You responded to and quoted my post in your Message-ID:
<atropos-D249E2...@news.giganews.com>

But you don't remember it...

Troll on...
--
Barb

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barb May <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>BTR1701 wrote:

>>I seem to have missed that "Barb May" post as well.

>Yeah, you "missed" one of the few times I actually agreed with something
>you said. That's believable...NOT

>From: "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
>Subject: Re: Mass Rape in Cologne, Germany
>Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:18:13 -0800
>Organization: albasani.net
>Lines: 31

>Message-ID: <n6rfcp$rpg$1...@news.albasani.net> . . .

Ok. "She" did say something. I apologize.

[trotsky]

On 3/15/16 12:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> Barb May <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>> In article <nc98pe$cpg$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Barb May" <bar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> \> How sad. The refugees are innocent victims who need help.
>>>
>>> And then they promptly commit mass sexual assault and demand religious
>>> concessions of the natives in the countries that generously (if not
>>> suicidally) accept them.
>>
>> Gee, couldn't you find a paint brush any broader to smear all refugees
>> as criminals and a danger to Western Civilization? Thanks for once again
>> exposing your bigotry.
>
> How many does it take before we can dispense with this "they're not all
> bad" bullshit?

It depends--are we at a Trump rally?

[FPP]

On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:

> How many does it take before we can dispense with this "they're not all
> bad" bullshit?

I think the answer would be "all". The answer is right there in your
question...
--
All those who believe in telekinesis raise my hand.

[FPP]

On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:

> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed a
> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.

Why? Because YOU say it is?

There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues (unless
somebody grants it to you) - therefore it can't be restricted.

You can't restrict what you don't have.
--
"Don't Believe Everything You Read on the Internet" -Albert Einstein

[FPP]

My favorite protestor chant from the Chicago rally was:

> "Ain't no party like a fuck Trump party 'cause a fuck Trump party don't stop."

Sure to be a classic...
--
Originality is the fine art of remembering what you hear but forgetting
where you heard it. -LJ Peter

[BTR1701]

FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
>> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed a
>> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
>> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.
>
> Why? Because YOU say it is?

No, 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence says it is.

> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues

Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.

And plenty of private forums guarantee participants the ability to enjoy
free speech, sometimes even over and above what the 1st Amendment would
grant of it applied.

[FPP]

--
"Don't sweat it - it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes." -Spafford

[FPP]

> On 2016-03-15 19:18:51 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
>>>> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed a
>>>> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
>>>> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.
>>>
>>> Why? Because YOU say it is?
>>
>> No, 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence says it is.
>>
>>> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues
>>
>> Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.
>>

Disingenuous, at best. You cut off half of my remark.

There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues. If they
can take it away, or restrict it on a whim, it doesn't really exist.

It's a fallacy.
--
Computers are like Old Testament Gods. Lots of rules, and no mercy.

[BTR1701]

In article <ncaa3d$nmr$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-03-15 19:18:51 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
>
> > FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>
> >>> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
> >>> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed a
> >>> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
> >>> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.
> >>
> >> Why? Because YOU say it is?
> >
> > No, 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence says it is.
> >
> >> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues
> >
> > Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.
> >
> > And plenty of private forums guarantee participants the ability to enjoy
> > free speech, sometimes even over and above what the 1st Amendment would
> > grant of it applied.

?

Great job quoting my post. Since you didn't bother to add anything, I'll
just assume you agree with it.

[Ubiquitous]

Someone's sockpuppet wrote:

>I checked right-wing web sites to see where you could have gotten this
>"spin" on the story and saw nothing, so apparently you came up with this
>all on your own. How sad. The refugees are innocent victims who need
>help. Do you oppose soliciting donations in order to provide temporary
>food and shelter to refugees? Really, Ed? Please don't be a hater.

Ever notice how whenever someone's lost the debate and is desperately
trying to shut things down, they accuse the other of hate?

--
Barb May is wrong, stupid, fat, ugly, and a liar. As usual.

[BTR1701]

In article <ncaa9j$o58$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> > On 2016-03-15 19:18:51 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >
> >> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>>
> >>>> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a private
> >>>> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is indeed
> >>>> a
> >>>> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
> >>>> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.
> >>>
> >>> Why? Because YOU say it is?
> >>
> >> No, 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence says it is.
> >>
> >>> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues
> >>
> >> Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.
> >>
> Disingenuous, at best. You cut off half of my remark.

None of it changed the fact that if a person conceives of a thing, then
the concept of that thing exists.

> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues.

[FPP]

I hit "send" prematurely... it happens.
--
All generalizations are false. -Twain

[FPP]

Then I conceive that it doesn't. So it doesn't.
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American
public. -Mencken

[BTR1701]

In article <ncah6k$697$3...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2016-03-15 22:09:11 -0400, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <ncaa9j$o58$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On 2016-03-15 19:18:51 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>>
> >>>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 2016-03-15 13:39:58 -0400, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> said:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Free speech" and the 1st Amendment are not the same thing. If a
> >>>>>> private
> >>>>>> venue like Facebook or YouTube is suppressing viewpoints, that is
> >>>>>> indeed
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> restriction on free speech. It's a legal one, however, because the 1st
> >>>>>> Amendment does not regulate conduct between private parties.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why? Because YOU say it is?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence says it is.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.
> >>>>
> >> Disingenuous, at best. You cut off half of my remark.
> >
> > None of it changed the fact that if a person conceives of a thing, then
> > the concept of that thing exists.
> >
> >> There is no such concept as "free speech" in private venues.
> >
> > Sure there is. If a person conceives it, the concept exists.
>
> Then I conceive that it doesn't. So it doesn't.

And and every time you do that, it's negated by someone who does.

[FPP]

Then it's gonna' be a looooonng night. For us... and Bernie.
--
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite
you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man." -Twain

[RichA]

"Freedom of the press" has come to mean freedom to only be hard-left liberals.
But the Game of Thrones people are like most "Parlour Pinks," who will never have to deal with the ramifications of the huge influx, apart from paying a little bit more of their income as welfare and they will never have to live amongst them in some ramshackle German or English ghetto.

[Micky DuPree]

David <diml...@yahoo.com> writes:

> More than trolls, more than troll-feeders, it's when regulars just
> randomly volunteer that they're terrible people is when usenet feels
> most exhausting.

Public appeals to people's baser nature are probably at a 50-year high
in the U.S., and (ObTV) a lot of it is in prime time now, unlike the old
days.

-Micky

[moviePig]

Maybe just an instance of learning whom you're riding the subway with.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Obveeus]

On 3/23/2016 7:22 AM, Micky DuPree wrote:

This is why Xena can now openly have a relationship with Gabrielle, right?

[Obveeus]

On 3/23/2016 9:30 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/23/2016 7:22 AM, Micky DuPree wrote:
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> More than trolls, more than troll-feeders, it's when regulars just
>>> randomly volunteer that they're terrible people is when usenet feels
>>> most exhausting.
>>
>> Public appeals to people's baser nature are probably at a 50-year high
>> in the U.S., and (ObTV) a lot of it is in prime time now, unlike the old
>> days.
>
> Maybe just an instance of learning whom you're riding the subway with.

Some people seek out the car full of vagrants and don't even realize
that doing so associates them with the company they chose to keep.

[Adam H. Kerman]

obveeus the hypocrite would never post followups in political threads,
would he, or threads that had just deteriorated into the point of
people bitching about everyone else.