What you seem to be misunderstanding, Carl, is that your condemnation of people for stating their political opinions was itself a political statement. Suppressing political opinion is ... wait for it ... political. Furthermore, the video was published by the White House and was itself a political statement; it was propaganda. You say it's inappropriate to discuss politics here because it suits your political ends. But that's faulty logic. When the White House puts out a video, a group discussion forum about videoblogging is a place to discuss the aesthetic, technical and political merits of that video, your political motivations notwithstanding. When you discuss any video here you permit yourself to talk about the message, the writing, the intent of its author as well as its technical specifics. That's what people were doing before you tried to silence their opinions for your own purposes.
-David --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, CarLBanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your right David, I support Bush and his "corrupt" policies. He may not be > our best president, but he's better than the alternatives we had! I thought > this whole topic was about the fact that they have a cute video about their > dogs. Not a forum to discuss politics. I'm not saying you don't have a right > to your opinion. I'm saying this isn't the right topic for it! > > On 12/19/06, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We have a president that many people feel stole his first term in > > office and won his second term because of fear mongering and the > > natural incumbency strength of a wartime administration. We have a > > president who many feel has lied to the country, waged an illegitimate > > and possibly illegal war and has severely diminished the reputation of > > America abroad. Bush's administration has overseen the largest > > expansion of the government and consequently deficit spending in > > history. Many of us feel that he is ruinous to this country's health. > > Statistically, every class but the rich are economically worse off > > after 6 years of his administration which consistently tries to cut > > funding for the arts and public media. And, still, you seem to think > > that in such an atmosphere that the Whitehouse spending time and money > > to produce a "cute video" about a dog won't or shouldn't garner > > crititcism. This makes no sense to me. Prima Facie everything an > > unpopular and embattled leader does will invite analysis and > > criticism. Why are you shaming people for having their opinions? Is > > it possible that you are a supporter of Bush's bankrupt policies? If > > that's not the case, if you're not a right-winger, what are you doing > > shaming people for having their political opinions? Shaming and > > silencing opposition is a tactic of the right-wing and has no place in > > open public discourse. Think Joseph McCarthy and the blacklists. > > Sorry Carl, I'm just not going for it. I've been a member of this > > board for awhile. I don't post too regularly, but I won't be shamed by > > you or anyone else into silence. Bush is a destructive fool. That ANY > > money and effort was spent to produce a cute video about a dog at a > > time when we are bleeding money for a war that appears to be a personal > > family vendetta is outrageous and needs to be commented on with > > political criticism. > > > > -David > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging% 40yahoogroups.com>, > > CarLBanks <carlbanks@> wrote: > > > > > > It is truly quite sad that we couldn't refrain from making political > > > statements over a cute video that the Whitehouse puts out. Political > > > statements had no place in this movie since it had nothing to do with > > > politics. Thanks for being so on topic everyone! > > > > > > -- > > > http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://thenameiwantedwastaken.com > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
