Youtube Inc. on politics
As a corporate entity, Youtube seems to have an agenda that generally supports illegal/massive immigration, and that might be due to the financial interests of their corporate parent Google in having a large supply of lower-cost engineers.
They repeatedly promoted the 9500 Liberty documentary series, one that was supportive of illegal immigration in Virginia. In partnership with the Pulitzer Center, a vapid 4 minute video about Postville was made a finalist in a contest. And, the immigration-related questions that were selected for their partnership with CNN to conduct debates were weak setups that simply allowed the candidates to give stock responses.
For those debates, they did not select my tough questions, and when I replied to the CNN/Youtube-supplied videos with responses pointing out how bad the questions were, CNN and/or Youtube deleted them from the list of responses and did not reply to my request for an explanation.
The Youtube Sockpuppets Project seeks to find out if politicians and other groups are using fake accounts to comment on that site's videos.
The term "sockpuppets" (see the link) refers to fake user accounts designed to mask someone's affiliation, promote something as if it's more popular than it is, and so on. I've long suspected that some comments left on certain political videos were from one person or group controlling several fake accounts.
Tonight Fox News will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with Youtube, with some of the questions to be asked having been submitted via Youtube. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others, especially considering the involvement of Youtube.
YouTube Town Hall: bogus debates between those on basically the same side (DREAM Act, Durbin, Johanns) - 08/17/11
Youtube is trying to mislead about immigration yet again.
AskObama: did Steve Grove choose an unpopular immigration question because of Voto Latino? - 01/28/11
Yesterday, Steve Grove of Youtube interviewed Barack Obama with a series of questions that users had submitted through the "Ask Obama" event. The Youtube interview was a scam; see that link for the details and the backstory.
To further drive home just how much of a scam it was, Grove appears to have undercut the implied rules of the competition by choosing an unpopular video as the only question about immigration. However, that video just happens to have been uploaded by an organization that's partnered with Youtube.
According to the implied rules of the competition, Youtube visitors would vote on the most popular questions, and then Youtube would select from those top-voted questions the ones they were going to ask.
Yet, the video they selected only has 17 up votes and 10 down votes, and not only is it very difficult to find, but its popularity is swamped by dozens of other questions . One wonders how Grove picked that particular video out of such a crowded field.
Perhaps a clue comes from the fact that the uploader  was Voto Latino, a Washington DC-based organization started by the actress Rosario Dawson. On their Youtube home page (youtube.com/user/votolatino) they include this:
Volunteers called thousands of voters and documented their experiences at the polls through our YouTube partnership Video Your Vote.
And, Grove today references this odd coincidence, retweeting this from VotoLatino:
RT @votolatino We helped get this video up & the President watched it. Thx Mario Lopez & Steve Li: http://fb.me/T7i8fqtj & @grove!
twitter dot com/grove/status/30945241347391488
The link in that tweet leads to this Facebook page containing a screengrab of the video as shown during the AskObama event and a repeat of their claim.
A screengrab of the video in a search for "ice" is attached, as is the video in question. See the first post for the full video.
Please contact @Grove and ask him to explain this odd coincidental discovery of his.
 For instance, I clicked "Next" countless times trying to find it at youtube.com/worldview after choosing "Video questions" and "Sorted by popularity". I gave up, and then searched for phrases I thought would be in the description. The only way I found it was through a search for "ice" (as in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement), and even then I had to click several times. In fact, it's only the 35th video shown for a search for "ice". There are 929 questions in a search for "dream act", and it's not in the first 100. And, there are dozens upon dozens of more popular questions - a few with videos - in the immigration category. The top five questions in the immigration category have between 1723 and 1899 up votes.
 Currently, the video is in the "SteveProd" account, but in Google Moderator (see the screengrab), the video is clearly marked as coming from "votolatino, Washington, D.C." and the small icon with the check mark is votolatino's logo. The "SteveProd" account just has that one video; it probably had other videos since the channel has lists total upload views of 44,574 and the only video in the account just has 386 views.
[UPDATE: Make sure and see this too]
Youtube and Barack Obama are conducting yet another scam, soliciting questions for Obama based on the State of the Union that he'll answer on Thursday, January 27. Other users vote up or down submitted questions, and then Obama will answer the top vote-getters.
The questions that get the most votes will invariably not be the best questions, the ones that Obama should be pressed on. In fact, they're likely to be some of the weakest questions of all. Obama and all other politicians should be "cross-examined" over their policies, and this latest scam will not even come close.
How systems like this are scams has already been discussed over and over with several examples involving Obama, Youtube, and others on the popular voting systems and Youtube corporate pages. If you don't agree that such systems are scams, see those pages and the past examples.
I submitted the following three questions to their immigration category; I'm not even going to bother suggesting voting them up because I know they'll never get enough of a vote differential between up and down.
For instance, at post time, six people like the DREAM Act question but five don't. The question is perfectly valid, very important, and needs to be asked. Yet, five people don't want it to be asked despite how valid it is. Under my plan (see the popular voting systems page), that wouldn't happen: known quantities who participated would be voting on how tough a question is, and if they unjustifiably voted a very tough question down they could be held publicly accountable.
Here are the questions; you might be able to find them through a search or here:
The Fed is profiting from money that illegal aliens send home to Mexico through their Directo a Mexico program ( http://24ahead.com/n/5978 ). Do you agree that a federal entity seeking to profit from illegally-earned money is a sign of corruption?
Do you agree that both college slots and college funding are finite? Do you agree that any college slots/funding given to illegal aliens under the DREAM Act will deprive some U.S. citizens of college? (attached video: youtube.com/watch?v=WZkvEmSy1vk)
Due to massive legal & illegal immigration, do you admit that the Mexican gov't has political power inside the U.S.? Do you agree that foreign countries shouldn't have political power inside the U.S.? What do you intend to do about it?
1/27/11 UPDATE 1: As yet another example of how Google Moderator (the software used in this case) and popular voting systems in general don't work, with voting closed the top 80 or so questions are all about pot. Those voting up the questions didn't abuse the system, they followed the rules of the system. And, the system revealed its flaws.
As for my questions, they have up/down votes of 9/6, 6/5, and 4/4 respectively. Meanwhile, this has 3152/282:
Mr. President, what is your stance on Net Neutrality? What do you intend to do to keep the internet free from censorship?
Obama's stance on Net Neutrality has been known for years and years and the FCC has taken steps in that area. A question that was going to do a public service would ask Obama a specific question about what his FCC has done in that specific area, based on a full knowledge of what they've said and done. Instead, questions like that just allow politicians to give stock speeches they've given many times before.
And, MoveOn voted up a similarly weak question about Net Neutrality in 2007 in a similar sham.
1/27/11 UPDATE 2: The event went exactly as expected: it was a complete sham. Steve Grove asked a series of weak questions, including some that were even weaker than "boxers or briefs?" And, Youtube managed to get in various plugs for their service, occasionally using the president of the U.S. as little more than a prop to promote a commercial company.
Video is attached, and at 33:00 you'll see Obama answer the only immigration question, about the anti-American DREAM Act. Instead of calling Obama on the downsides of that bill, Grove simply introduced a video of an apparent illegal alien and asked Obama when the bill might pass. (And, didn't call Obama on his use of nation of immigrants).
Personal anecdotes about the DREAM Act are not at all difficult to find (see dozens on the PIIPP page), but a debate about the downsides is very difficult to find. There are two or more sides to every story, yet all Youtube could do is present one side without acknowledging the viewpoint of another side.
1/28/11 UPDATE: I fixed the bad year (10) in the updates above. More importantly, the DREAM Act question that Grove chose is unpopular, but just happens to be from an organization that's partnered with Youtube in the past. See the link for the details.
One of the main goals of this site is to hold politicians accountable. Google Moderator and similar systems go in the opposite direction: they've let a long series of politicians off the hook and in most cases they've even made it easier for politicians to mislead.
Youtube now lets video uploaders create Google Moderator polls attached to their videos; Moderator lets users submit questions (or comments) and other users can vote up or down those user-submitted questions. In the past, Google Moderator and similar systems have been used by politicians to avoid being asked tough questions, and those who take advantage of this new capability need to make sure to only use it for situations where it's appropriate.
Steve Grove asks Obama weak questions live on Youtube ("Your" Interview with the President) - 02/01/10
Earlier today, Steve Grove - Youtube's director of news and politics programming - interviewed Barack Obama live on Youtube (and on the White House's live feed) and asked him a series of weak questions that he answered with ease. Some or all of the questions he was asked were submitted by Youtube's visitors, very few of whom are familiar with specialized topics and with asking tough questions.
CNN, Google global warming propaganda show how untrustworthy they are (COP15 video contest) - 12/14/09
Google is going all out to present a one-sided view of global warming, not even acknowledging that some might disagree. On www.google.com at post time there's a prominent link called "Explore impact of climate change on Google Earth"; clicking the link brings you to google.com/landing/cop15:
Explore the potential impacts of climate change on our planet Earth and learn about solutions for adaptation and mitigation, in the context of the United Nation's Climate Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen. With Google Earth you can view climate change scenarios, interact with narrated tours, investigate deforestation, and even dive into the depths of the oceans.
On the left side of the page is a sidebar linking to 14 videos; the first features Al Gore and all the others are along the same lines, including the ones featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ted Danson (apparently he's now a climatologist). Below the video section they promote projections of the IPCC, link to an editorial from the Guardian UK that appeared in 50 newspapers, promote their google.org (which is "helping to build a clean energy future"), and ask their visitors to "Show your vote for a fair and effective deal in Copenhagen".
This is propaganda in its rawest form, and about the only contrary voices to be found are some in the associated Youtube video contest with user-generated questions. Those take the form of both text and video, and will be used in a CNN "debate". For those sources' commitment to an open debate, see this, this, this, and this among many others.
...President Obama announced that on September 8 - the first day of school for many children across America - he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education... This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It will be broadcast live on the White House website www.whitehouse.gov 12:00 noon eastern standard time.
First, a bit of backstory: in my pre-election list of reasons to oppose Obama, his indoctrination plan for pre-teens was #3. He wanted to use kids under 12 to get votes; it said as much right on his site. Despite it being right on his campaign web site, the incompetent opposition leaders refused to use it against him, when it could have galvanized opposition from hundreds of thousands or millions of parents if handled correctly.
With that in mind, while it's to a good extent a good thing that the president is addressing the nation's children, it's not difficult to see that he has an ulterior motive and will subtly attempt to get those children to convince their parents to support his agenda.
Note also that the Department of Education is providing a "menu of classroom activities" before the speech, and they'll be conducting a video contest. And, on a sidenote, the page linked above is giving a perfectly good link to Youtube with the anchor text "interview with student reporter"; such a link is a valuable commodity.
UPDATE: Drudge is now linking to this document containing the "menu":
[before the speech, ask:]...Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?...
[During the speech:] As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?
As pointed out here, another "menu" item is the suggestion that teachers have students:
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.
9/2/09 UPDATE: From this:
In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.
...Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”
“We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.
9/8/09 UPDATE: Here are more excerpts from the lesson plans.
Steve Grove of Youtube writes (youtube.com/blog?entry=20h2yiH79Tc):
President Obama is taking your questions this Wednesday in a special online health care town hall event. With health care at the top of the President's agenda, he is opening up the White House to questions via YouTube... He'll answer some of the most popular questions during the event, which we'll stream live from the White House YouTube channel.
In a word, this is a sham. And, it's similar to all the other shams that Youtube, CNN, Obama, and others have conducted for the past couple of years; see the popular voting systems summary for the background. Basically, the president of the U.S. is trying to fool people, and a private company is helping. In the current case it's even more obvious: they'll only choose "some" of the questions, and how exactly they're determining popularity isn't spelled out. In brief, Youtube is going to choose videos that are basically just set-ups from those who aren't experts in this field.
There are two things to do here (but that won't be done): do an end-around such filtering by trying to ask Obama and other politicians questions in person (see question authority), and for an actual expert to submit a very valid but adversarial question that Obama would have trouble with. If that question is selected, then it might make Obama look bad. If that question is not selected (the far more likely option), then the fact that Youtube didn't choose it can be used to make Youtube look bad.
UPDATE: The things I do for you! I just spot-checked about 15 of the 300 or so videos, and all are as bad as we've come to expect. Almost all boil down to one simple phrase: "when do I get *my* pony?" While some of those people may have valid concerns, the "questions" they're asking will simply give Obama an entree to a stock response. They're doing a public disservice by simply acting as foils for Obama. If they really wanted to do a public service, they would find an expert to ask the questions about their concerns instead of simply posting worthless vanity videos. Just because you have a case doesn't mean you should do your own lawyering.
UPDATE 2: I added my own video.
On the attached video, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln responds to citizen input on the SAVE Act and her related push to increase volunteerism. This is part of the Youtube effort called "Senate Hub" in which users submit questions which are then answered by various senators (youtube.com/user/senatehub).
Youtube joins with Anti Defamation League to stop "hate" videos ("Abuse and Safety Center") - 03/01/09
Back in December 2008, Youtube established the Orwellian-named "Abuse and Safety Center" (youtube.com/t/safety), an online tool that can be used to report threats, spam, and other forms of legitimate abuse. However, they also have a section dealing with "Hateful Content", and for that they've joined with the Anti Defamation League (help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?page=&answer=126264&master=hatefulcontent).
There's a discussion of that here, including two videos side-by-side: one from the rightwing side that was deleted by Youtube, and an apparently similar one from the other side that was not. I haven't looked into it, but there are also a series of videos here, some of which may have been deleted by Youtube.
Youtube and the World Economic Forum have teamed up as they did last year, seeking user-generated answers to four setup questions on ethics, politics, the environment, and the economy (youtube.com/user/thedavosquestion).
For the backstory, see Shock: Youtube/Pulitzer contest has pro-illegal immigration puff piece as finalist. That same worthless, illegal immigration-supporting video (link) is now one of the five finalists in the Pulitzer competition and is #20 on Youtube's Featured list. Either because of that or because of creative counting, its views have jumped from around 700 a couple days ago to over 60,000 currently.
Today, President-elect Obama will record the weekly Democratic address not just on radio but also on video -- a first.
The "Open Debate Coalition" - a group consisting of people such as Glenn Reynolds ("Instapundit") and Stanford law professor Larry Lessig  - is calling on John McCain and Barack Obama to open the presidential debates by allowing questions chosen by regular people and not just the MSM.
However, what they support has not only been proven to be a failure, but two of the signatories helped show how such formats can be gamed and another was involved with the system that was gamed.
Youtube's "Citizentube" (citizentube.com) apparently doesn't want to hear from citizens, because that blog where they post promos for Youtube's political ventures has stopped allowing comments on their entries. They used to allow comments, but they've even gone as far as deleting all comments which were left on their past entries.
I blame myself, since I pestered Youtube's Steve Grove by leaving the three comments in the extended entry, none of which are there anymore.
Youtube/Google debate: September in New Orleans (Soviet Union flashbacks for Sergey Brin?) - 04/29/08
Youtube and Google are working with local politicians to have a presidential debate in September in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man run "9500Liberty", a pro-illegal immigration online documentary project discussing issues in northern Virginia (youtube.com/user/9500Liberty). In the past they've resorted to re-re-re-repurposing supposedly controversial comments from an older white gentleman in an attempt to racially demagogue the issue, but now they're back with a new video called "IMMIGRATION Crackdown HURTS Our Economy" (link) featuring the thoughts of supposed professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Stephen Fuller.
Like their other efforts, the video is being promoted by Youtube for an unknown reason. I'm going to assume that they haven't paid Youtube for the promotion and the latter company is doing it for free for one reason or other, possibly even related to their corporate goals of increasing skilled immigration (Laszlo Bock; link). And, I'm going to assume that their hack political editor, Steve Grove, is at least partly responsible for the promotion. I don't think that's an unfair assumption, considering Grove posts like this:
One of the most poignant examples we've seen of the immigration debate on YouTube has come from 9500Liberty, a channel started by Eric Byler to highlight the immigration battle taking place in Prince William County, Virginia. 9500 Liberty is the address of an intersection where immigration protests became heated after local policy makers debated an ordinance denying certain rights to local immigrants.
Those "immigrants" are actually illegal aliens, and the ordinance involved trying not to give them rights to which they aren't entitled. The quote above follows Grove using the intentionally misleading euphemism "undocumented workers".
We're all going to regret giving Youtube so many links (note that I put nofollow tags on the Youtube links above)
The World Economic Forum and Youtube appear to have joined forces and are requesting that Youtube users submit questions for the Davos event to be held next year (youtube.com/thedavosquestion). One or more top-rated videos will be selected and screened for the attendees, and then the attendees will deign to provide responses. The user videos should answer the following question:
"What one thing do you think that countries, companies or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008?"
Then, starting January first, visitors will vote for their top choice. (Since coming up with a voting system isn't that difficult, I wonder why they couldn't have had it in place for the CNN debates.)
Unlike with the questions for the U.S. presidential race, I'd be very happy if all or most of the questions are completely idiotic and then an effort could be started to vote up the absolute worst one. Maybe Hank The Angry Drunken Dwarf could join forces with the Snowman to promote World Communism, or maybe Obama Girl has a song.
Note that the spokesmodel for this effort is Lori Harfenist ("The Resident"). While easy on the eyes (youtube.com/watch?v=2zMxGgmPcHs), she's not exactly known for being a heavyweight pundit nor someone willing to ask real questions (see all her other videos, like youtube.com/watch?v=eVVHotSNR8g, youtube.com/watch?v=6Lqsc97lYlo, or youtube.com/watch?v=e3b-Xbau0nY). Note also that Chad Hurley, Youtube founder, spoke at last year's event (youtube.com/watch?v=2xXlZK5rCls).
Youtube and/or CNN censored the list of video replies to their raw footage of the recent CNN/Youtube GOP debate.
On November 29, 2007 I uploaded two highly critical videos about the previous night's debate, and added them as replies to two of the CNN/Youtube-provided videos. My videos were in the list of replies for between one and three days, but then sometime on or before December 1 were deleted from the list. (Note: the videos themselves weren't deleted; they were only deleted them from the list of replies).
Part 1 is here.
At last night's debate, CNN gave Mike Huckabee so much time to demagogue college discounts for illegal aliens that they didn't give Mitt Romney enough time to make the essential point that what Huckabee supported would have deprived U.S. citizens of college discounts.
They also failed to do their research and realize that there's already an existing federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec.
Analyzing all the ways that CNN and Youtube are trying to lead America astray with their bogus "debates" would take a tremendous amount of time. So, I'm just going to look at two of the ways (Part 2 is here).
The first is keyed to this video, the question asking the candidates to pledge to oppose any immigration bill containing amnesty.
CNN should not have selected that question because no one who supports amnesty calls it amnesty.
1. Huckster really showed how to demagogue, changing what appeared to be a question about giving illegal aliens college discounts into an answer generating pro-military applause. Romney made the important point that there's only so much money to go around... that is, before CNN had to move on to the next question.
The presidential debates so far have been a mockery of a sham, featuring shallow questions, few follow-ups, and even worse in the case of the last CNN debate.
The second Youtube/CNN debate will be held on Wednesday, November 28, and I can tell already it's going to be as bad - if not worse - than the first one. They'll ask a series of lightweight questions, and throw in a few humorous entries designed to portray those on the internet of being wacky (in contrast to the "serious journalists" at CNN).
A documentary about the immigration situation in Northern Virginia from independent filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man is currently being serialized on the web: youtube.com/9500Liberty. Nick Miroff of the Washington Post promotes it in "Raw Look at Immigration Crucible". Both he and a member of the local Minuteman Civil Defense Corps say they're balanced. However, a glance at the videos casts a great deal of doubt on that, and Miroff admits that both Byler and Park volunteered for the James Webb campaign. In fact:
"Watching George Allen look into the camera and point and say you are not the real Virginia, the real Virginia is the people who are laughing with me at you, reminded me of this whole thing that was never resolved," Byler said.
What a creative retelling of events. Whatever the issue with Macaca, the "real" statement wasn't directed at the cameraman: it was meant to draw a contrast between where Allen was and where Webb was at that moment, namely in Hollywood. Since Byler can't get that right, don't expect the videos to be much better.
A sample video is at: youtube.com/watch?v=k_Dw1ioGPGY Someone who might be refered to as an old coot objects to people speaking Spanish and has other old cootish concerns. For this the commentors on the video call him a racist. The overall impact of this segment is to portray Hispanics as oppressed victims of people like him.
However, the issues on that segment go much deeper, and both the filmmakers and Miroff appear to be too steeped in leftwing ideology to recognize those issues. Here's his first paragraph, refering to this video:
In one video, a man furious about hearing Spanish at a hardware store berates a group of Latino families with a lecture on American history, telling them "my ancestors were here before the Constitution." A little girl shyly reminds him: "The Indians were here before the Americans."
And, someone else says that the Europeans came here illegally. What Miroff and Byler don't pick up on is that we're importing people who think they have a race-based claim on our land. And, they're expressing that claim and using it as justification for coming here contrary to our laws.
That theme is also included in a clip called "Hispanic Children Will One Day Rise" (youtube.com/watch?v=HyzMOcjITvI); that's a quote from a black high school teacher (Patrick Garland) who spoke at a meeting of the Prince William County board after which they passed a Proposition 200-style ordinance (link). He spoke against the ordinance, and, on the video, he also says that, because we're a nation of immigrants, we're "in no position to say that this is our country."
Obviously, if we can't say who can come here, then we've not only got open borders we have no control over our country and in fact we no longer have a country.
Bearing in mind that YT is pretty much at the AOL level when it comes to political debate, the comments left on the videos show the dangers inherent in allowing mass immigration by those who can pretend to have some race-based right to come here at will. A few examples from different people are in the extended entry.
UPDATE: They've re-edited the old coot's episode here: youtube.com/watch?v=29WTKbpYhag
With that, they've revealed their hand: their goal is engaging in base racial demagoguery, not fostering debate.
3/2/10 UPDATE: Due to the switch to a new CMS, the formatting in the following got mixed up, confusing me in the other recent update that was here. In any case, the following are the Youtube video comments left by others referred to three paragraphs up, delimited by dashes; whether some of these should be run together is lost to the sands of time:
"America is the land of immigrants" who has the right to say "this is our country" the Native Americans are the one who should be able to say it, not Anglo-American.
coming from an half african and mexican male.i love my people and this land was ours and don't tell me my people had nothing to do with building this country.we built this country.
by-the-way. that old man has no more claim to live here than any of thoseb legal hispanics, his people came to America and persecuted my ancestors [the filmmakers posted a reply saying they wanted to interview that poster]
That old white guy needs to go to school. Every race here except for the Natives shouldn't be here. It was rightfully their land before the white people.
BTW I am not hispanic but I feel for them.some parts of Mexico was forcefully taken in violence hence California,Colorado,Texas now U.S.A..
you said it, this land is stolen... so, Mexicans are just recovering it
the fact that europeans have been illegal in this country since 1492 doesnt seem to cross anyone's mind
They think they own the land that they are on right now, and think it always belonged to them. When in all actuality it belonged\belongs to the Indians.
The Native Americans were in the country first until a pack of people from another country decide to take it over. Some Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) are mixed of European and Native American blood, so technically his "we were here first" argument is completely invalidated by that fact alone.
When each group(Irish, German, Italian) came to this stolen country they had their languages they spoke and if you were in a deli or store you heard it. We slaughtered the Native Americans and as far as this side of the world Natives of South America were here first. We shot and killed and stole land from them. I dare you to find me a spoiled white kid who is willing to leave their ipod or X box to work when their parents hand them everything.
If that american guy actually studied HIS history he would know that the americans as we know it today KILLED all the natives and claimed this land as theirs.
Rudy Giuliani claimed that he'd never heard of the "NAFTA Superhighway" but his law firm is deeply involved in the Texas leg of the project.
Here's a relatively mild question I put together for the upcoming CNN/Youtube debate about that discrepancy; please go to his campaign appearances and try to ask him this question:
I give up. Well, not really, but that's how I feel after watching some of the submissions for the Youtube/CNN Republican debate (to be held at some unknown future date). As with the Democratic version, expect CNN to pick the worst of the worst in order to a) not make the candidates uncomfortable, and b) not make CNN's standard questions look as weak as they are.
In previous GOP and Democratic debates, various MSM hacks have featured at most one or two questions about immigration matters, all of them worthless.
Please do not choose the following video for the upcoming GOP debates.
Mitt Romney is apparently going to pull out of the next CNN/Youtube "debate" because he doesn't want to answer questions like those from snowmen. Rudy Giuliani is likewise unsure. Hugh Hewitt thinks it will turn into a chance for CNN to ask a series of leftwing questions, and is suggesting against taking part.
A look at the questions for the debate submitted so far shows that they have little to fear. Unless, of course, they're afraid of asking a question from a hot dog (link).
The Youtube/CNN debate sucked. The questions that CNN selected were little different from what MSM hacks would have asked; the videos from "average citizens" were little more than props. Of course, that's to be expected: if CNN had selected any of the small number of tough questions, it would have revealed them and the rest of the mainstream media for the corrupt hacks they are.