Is Hillary Clinton Abusing YouTube?

Roger.. i guess i was nitpicking on the angle.. “abusing youtube”.. in fact your explanation after my post was a bit more on than such sensationalism… mainly because the issue is clouded as to where the stuff is… and truly the issue, is, as always, whats being said compared to what they do.

i would definitely not deny any group their say and criticism, why should i want that?

maybe we just bobbled the way two people walking down the street sometimes do..

Technically there is no way to ‘abuse’ you tube in a meaningful way. one would have to WANT to see the things and keep them on.

any candidate could upload to youtube…

its interesting that in this site you can come from one page complaining about thought police and state control, and here is someone asking (baiting?) what point for what reason?

I may not agree with her politics, thats all well and good and my right. but why would i want to block her from talking or showing her stuff? my vote MAY say i dont want her in office, but thats about where it stops as far as some imposed restriction.

“One of the greatest offenses a political candidate can perpetrate is abuse of the internet. “

do you realize how totalitarian and nutty that sounds?

abuse a scale free network? how? do you realize how many keys and clicks someone has to go through to locate the abuse and then subject themselves to it?

the politician using pols to mold themselves to the public is nothing new.. at least nothing new in a political system where for some bizare reason people decide to abdicate their supervision of their leaders following their wishes by finding someone that thinks the way they do.

we ask our leaders to actually change as times change so that they represent the mass values.

we USED to ask our leaders to vote our interests and damn their own. that they would vote their constituency and represent them even if they dont agree with them went out the window with good governance.

the current thing just asks for the best liars.. and since they are being elected to make choices on their own, they lie to get into office then do what they want since thats what we let them do. better to put someone in you dont trust and watch them than to put someone you trust when you shouldnt that will not be watched nor impinged.

while she has the same freedom to post (while we dont have the new many teired net and have net neutrality), i dont think it right to restrict her writings and such from being available (when they were before) so they can be considered as part of the assesment of a good leader and their core values, even if they no longer have the same ones now.

while fighting control of ourselves, i dont think i will sign on for control of others.