They don't kick the people off who are say treasonist things like their country is behind 9/11 when they have no proof and their theories are alway being shot down because they are by crackpots.
They aren't a difference of opinon, these people are making unfounded accusations against the leaders of their country but their freedom of speech is protectd.
We have others on here with a different opinon, that ISN'T borderline treason and they get kicked off for no reason does that sound fair?
2007-11-07 06:51:17 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I mean kicks innocent people off, oops
2007-11-07 06:51:38 · update #1
I don't know why people don't think saying that your country caused a disaster on itself when it's not true and there is no real evidence is not treason. What the hell is wrong with people.
2007-11-08 01:26:00 · update #2
Because the 9/11 consiparcy clowns work together and boot someone off.
You get enough complaints and you are gone.
I consider anyone who believes the 9/11 consiparcy theories on the same level as those who deny the holocaust.
2007-11-07 06:55:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 6⤋
the assumption is that our government mandatory a sturdy excuse to pass to war with "the terrorists" and finally with Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, so it grew to become right into a deliberate journey by using our governments Saudi acquaintances. They mandatory to create a large worry interior the minds of people to rally at the back of Bush's pass to pass to war. observe that presently after commencing the war with Bin encumbered, our troops have been sent to Iraq, leaving Bin encumbered in Afghanistan intact. WHY? the main at the back of each and all the insanity is the oil fields in Iraq. disposing of a pair of homes in manhattan, and sacrificing some thousand human beings is surely a small fee to pay interior the grand scheme of issues in case you upload up each and all the money that they are getting from all that oil they're pumping out of Iraq each and on a daily basis. (do no longer forget that the variety of squaddies that have been killed or maimed has nicely surpassed the quantity of human beings who died on 9/11). Over a million barrels of oil an afternoon at $60-$70 in line with barrel is a lot of money. we actually do no longer hear lots concerning to the oil although can we. it would make some human beings in capability do some evil issues to get administration of that. it somewhat is the assumption, as loopy because it style of feels. Makes you ponder whether our government must be that corrupt, and what variety of international we actually stay in.
2016-12-08 14:54:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Treasonist things? Saying 9/11 was an inside job, no matter how ludicrous it may sound to you, is nowhere near the definition of treason.
Are the people who think the govt. lied to them about landing on the moon treasonous? Of course not!
Are the people who think Bill Clinton had some people secretly murdered treasonous? (Speaking ill of a leader, claiming he had committed crimes against his country without a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis.) Heavens no!
Until I start seeing people sending checks to Al-Qaeda, I won't be throwing out the treason card at anyone ok?
2007-11-07 07:12:23 · answer #3 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
The decision to remove a question, suspend a user or remove an account is not based on the beliefs of the people, it is based on the community guidelines. While I disagree with many people, I don't report people because I disagree with them, I report people because they clearly violate the community guidelines. I often report people that are expressing an opinion that is the same as mine when it violates the rules. They are not innocent.
The rules exist to create an environment where people can ask questions and get answers in a collaborative mature environment. Those that violate the rules make this environment more like a kindergarten classroom.
2007-11-07 06:58:18 · answer #4 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I don't mind the conspiracy theorists. It takes all kinds here on Yahoo. What does bother me is inapropriate links (to porn sites and whatnot), blatent cursing and ranting (but really it has to be pretty darn severe), and advertising. But the theorists on either side? They aren't doing anything other than expressing an opinion. It's politics. It's fair.
2007-11-07 06:55:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of Speech is NOT "treason".
bush standing by and doing NOTHING as the USA was attacked and Americans were MURDERED on 9/11 was!
2007-11-07 12:01:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
My new personal campaign it to report anyone who admits that they are involved in criminal activities. Why should criminals be allowed to use Yahoo! Answers? They are forbidden by the TOS and by the Community Guidelines so each time I see someone claiming to be an illegal alien I'm going to report them and expect the fine folks at Yahoo! Answers to delete their account just as they would if a child molester were soliciting here. I hope you will all join me!
It does not seem right that criminals of any kind are welcomed at Yahoo! Answers.
2007-11-07 06:58:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I am not sure. I always thought we had free speech, up to the point of personal bashing someone that is.
I don't understand why either, unless the questions were inflamitory, but then all of Gov't Cheese' "questions" inflame me, but I think he is a cheese head anyway!
2007-11-07 06:58:08 · answer #8 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think a huge part of how Yahoo differentiates is on the basis of their perceived intent of the asker or answerer.
If the obvious intent of the asker is to insult and/or yap so others pay attention to him, after awhile he gets booted.
If the question is meant to provoke thought and really is a question (rather than just a statement hiding behind a question mark), then it stays.
"How can God exist if XXX" at least has SOME form of thought behind it.
"Christians suck" is purely hateful (and not a question).
Do you understand the difference?
I think any attempt at making vast generalizations is looked upon skeptically.
2007-11-07 06:57:07 · answer #9 · answered by Elana 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Conspiracy theorists, even those with theories that you or I might find offensive, aren't treasonous. It isn't treasonous to speak out against the United States of America, it's treasonous to lend material aid or comfort to her enemies, or actively plot against her.
But Yahoo doesn't actually care about any of that- they suspend accounts that get repeated violations of the community guidelines for things like cursing, insulting other members, impersonating other members, or maintaining multiple accounts. Here's a link to the current community guidelines if you'd like to know what is or isn't acceptable on the site: http://answers.yahoo.com/info/community_guidelines.php
It isn't about free speech, it's about Yahoo's right to decide what's acceptable on their own property. Think about it this way, is it a violation of my first amendment rights if you ask me not to spray paint insults on your garage door? Of course not, you have every right to maintain your own property as you see fit.
2007-11-07 07:01:09 · answer #10 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Innocent. Questionable premises again, that can
make all attempts, of answering sincerely, quite futile.
People who overuse 'treason' are conspiracy theorists
themselves, my humble and modest personal defintion.
2007-11-07 07:15:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋