Carl, freedom of speech extends to dogs and their owners. The dog's owners/guardians have the right to post a video about the mutt in question.
This dog's owners/guardians live at the White House. Just that fact alone, no matter who is occupying the house will bring additional attention and scrutiny. It is part of the job Dubya accepted. Now I truly hope this was not funded with a dime of my tax dollars but if the money was diverted from a bullet or a covert operation that would be okay with me. I need you to understand that the very mention of the occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue invokes very strong feelings. You may have the warm fuzzy for the guy but I do not for a multiplicity of reasons. Yet I will defend the right of expression, no matter the corporeal form of the being in question. Who did the "vodcasts'? With what equipment? Was an outside firm hired or in-house PR staff? Why did they make the decision to do so? What was the purpose of the video? Those are legitimate question we can ask about this. But along with those legitimate questions come feelings. You may have not liked Clinton but I would have questioned the same things if he had done a video about his dog during the dark lame duck days of his administration. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com http://voxmedia.org/wiki/Video --- 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] >
