Honestly, Jerry? After about 1 minute of the video, I couldn't figure out <i>what</i> it was supposed to be about -- and that was after I read the YouTube summary. In short, it bored the crap out of me.
And I'll watch paint dry, really.
Maybe you could explain it to me. I have no idea who Peter Paul is. Am I supposed to know already? Was this a story about campaign finance irregularities in 2000?
It occurs to me that they're preaching to the choir.
Haven't we been there and done that already? Is there something new and big and startling about this, or is it more of the same old same old?
It's probably more of the same old same old. I just hadn't heard about it. I'm the type of person that tunes into stuff every 4 years or so. So stuff that happens in between years, I'm out of date on. I got this video clip in an e-mail forward that stated the entire video (1 hour or so) is slated for NATIONAL broadcast on November 1st.
So I guess I thought it was a big deal, or will be becoming one.
I guess the guy Peter Paul is suing the Clinton's. My point for bringing it up was that this guy has some ties with Stan Lee. With the surging popularity of Comics turned movies and Hero based TV shows, having an icon like Stan Lee involved indirectly in a political dispute could turn all the comic book geeks against Hillary.
Four years ago people were just as sick of the Swifties as Kerry was. If Kerry was elected, that just meant the likes of SBVFT would still be around annoying the piss out of the general populace. Instead, they faded rightfully into obscurity.
You bring up an interesting phenomenon -- email as a vehicle for propagating righty memes.
Lefties pretty much dominate blogville. But when righties want to spread the word about, say, dirt on the Clintons, they'll use email as a sort of whispering campaign.
Check out Snopes.com: During the 2004 campaign, all of the emails concerning Bush (true and false) were good stories, i.e., about his heroism; about his kindness to strangers, children and animals, whatever. Virtually all the emails were positive in nature.
On the other hand, looking at the emails concerning Kerry (whether they were true or false) -- virtually all of them were negative in tone.
Anyway, to the point -- Peter Paul actually tried to get me to hire him to represent me in this case. I couldn't follow his point, either. I was willing to meet with him, though, but he just kind of evaporated in the middle of the conversation. On the other hand, while Senator Clinton succeeded in taking Tim's approach, President Clinton has not been quite so fortunate -- see here.
And I'll watch paint dry, really.
Maybe you could explain it to me. I have no idea who Peter Paul is. Am I supposed to know already? Was this a story about campaign finance irregularities in 2000?
It occurs to me that they're preaching to the choir.
Haven't we been there and done that already? Is there something new and big and startling about this, or is it more of the same old same old?
It's probably more of the same old same old. I just hadn't heard about it. I'm the type of person that tunes into stuff every 4 years or so. So stuff that happens in between years, I'm out of date on. I got this video clip in an e-mail forward that stated the entire video (1 hour or so) is slated for NATIONAL broadcast on November 1st.
So I guess I thought it was a big deal, or will be becoming one.
I guess the guy Peter Paul is suing the Clinton's. My point for bringing it up was that this guy has some ties with Stan Lee. With the surging popularity of Comics turned movies and Hero based TV shows, having an icon like Stan Lee involved indirectly in a political dispute could turn all the comic book geeks against Hillary.
Four years ago people were just as sick of the Swifties as Kerry was. If Kerry was elected, that just meant the likes of SBVFT would still be around annoying the piss out of the general populace. Instead, they faded rightfully into obscurity.
Lefties pretty much dominate blogville. But when righties want to spread the word about, say, dirt on the Clintons, they'll use email as a sort of whispering campaign.
Check out Snopes.com: During the 2004 campaign, all of the emails concerning Bush (true and false) were good stories, i.e., about his heroism; about his kindness to strangers, children and animals, whatever. Virtually all the emails were positive in nature.
On the other hand, looking at the emails concerning Kerry (whether they were true or false) -- virtually all of them were negative in tone.
Weird, eh?
Anyway, to the point -- Peter Paul actually tried to get me to hire him to represent me in this case. I couldn't follow his point, either. I was willing to meet with him, though, but he just kind of evaporated in the middle of the conversation. On the other hand, while Senator Clinton succeeded in taking Tim's approach, President Clinton has not been quite so fortunate -- see here.