Originally Posted By: the G-man
Posting a YouTube clip is often less effective.

to you because you're an old man who doesn't understand technology. I bet right now you have the CD tray out and your drink resting there and you don't understand how to use the "tiny shiny records" that you keep seeing.

 Quote:
If someone posts a written editorial, it can be quickly skimmed to determine whether it's worthwhile read the whole thing. It can also be read without the sound on and doesn't take time to load (not everyone has cable or DSL, for example).

who doesn't have DSL at this point? the price of DSL is pretty cheap and some cities (like SF) offer free wifi in some areas (or you can just piggyback on someone's connection. who uses dial-up these days? that argument is like bitching Blockbuster only carries DVDs and exludes the VCR people.
with a video clip you can tell the tone right off the bat and determine whether or not you want to watch it. And with anyone posting a video editorial, they're posting it because they believe it has merit and that is often as much of a basis for judgment as skimming. And if you're in a situation where you can't play the sound, then that's your problem. Either don't post at work or skip that post and don't chime in on it. But I really do believe that hearing and seeing the person is more important than just reading the words. You need the full experience of the communication.

 Quote:
And, to be honest, just as you probably wouldn't bother to click on a video from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, I'm not going to bother to sit there and listen to Olbermann bloviate.

fair enough, but you can still post your videos if you think they convey a point. Those two are bad examples though. Those two are so far beyond any respectability that I would never watch them. However if you posted a fox news story i would watch it, an o'reilly clip. I may not like them but those I will sit through to hear the opposing ideas. I actually watch them on my own alongside the olbermann clips because i like hearing both sides even when i am firmly siding with one.

 Quote:
When I do post a clip, I try to explain why I posted it and what it's about, so the reader can determine if he or she wants to click on it.

I typed out a bunch on Mccain and then said "here's a good editorial by olbermann." what confused you about that? where was the mystery? if you really did make it through law school then i'm sure your keen legal mind sussed out that Olbermann in the video would be talking about Mccain.


 Quote:
You insurgents and insurgent wannabes typically just throw up a lengthy clip of Olbermann and expect us to sit there and try and figure out why we should pay attention to his latest bit of lib-porn.

i spent about 2 years here avoiding this forum, i clearly established myself on the other forums as my own person. but the second i started to post here and it was clear i held liberal beliefs you and bsams and others accused me of being whomod's alt. now because a group of liberal posters called the insurgency posted here, you accuse all liberal posters of being insurgents. it's tired, it's lame, it's what rex does. you want to pull "ray-facts" or "get me a soda" or something specific to me to insult me then go for it, but this is just past the point of being funny, or annoying, to just being worthy.
I don't say you and wondy are the same person. i have specific insults for him and specific insults for you. why? because i care about my insulting jokes. you and bsams seem to be butt buddies lately, take a page from him and only put out the good jokes.

 Quote:
As for your other points, I've never seriously called Obama a "traitor." I've criticized him for his close associations people who could legitimately be called traitors, such as Ayers, and his extremely dangerous and naive foreign policy views.

"traitor" is a specific term with a specific meaning. did Ayers work with a foreign agent or power? did he compromise classified intelligence or sell secrets? was his aim to overthrow the government in the name of some outside force taking over? that is what a traitor does.
he was an anarchist i guess, he was a dissident, but not a "traitor."
you have pretty much accused Obama of being a terrorist, a "secret muslim," you use his middle name (which comes from the word for Handsome in Arabic and is pretty common) to insinuate he was somehow evil. While at the same time blasting his association with a christian preacher. Which is it? If he's a secret muslim then going to wright's church wouldn't really mean much.

 Quote:
Finally, you need to let go of the Bush obsession. McCain isn't Bush and the left's attempts to claim otherwise look desperate and foolish.

Bush is the current President. These men are running for his job. Bush is the one who started this war, he is the one who managed all the tasks and policies that one of these men will oversee. So in the campaign Bush is probably the most important issue. Whether you like Bush and agree with him or not matters to how you will rank the candidates and make your choice.
And Bush ran in 2000 based on how bad he thought Clinton was, and how he would be different. Gore ran in 2000 based on how good Clinton was and how he would continue the good work.
Clinton ran in 1992 based on how bad Bush sr was, and how he would be different.
Bush ran in 1988 based on how good Reagan was and how he would carry on, while I imagine (but was only 6 so don't recall) that Dukakis ran on how bad the Reagan years were.
The current President's job performance matters. Ultimtately it boils down to do you want someone who opposes Bush and would take a different route, or do you want someone who will follow Bush's lead (in his own way, but still on the general route).

Bow ties are coool.