Skip to comments.Obama and the YouTube drugs/gay sex video
Posted on 02/17/2008 6:00:30 PM PST by Admin ModeratorEdited on 02/17/2008 6:17:12 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
OK folks, where should we go from here? Do we continue to post the YouTube video, and the articles about the YouTube video, here on Free Republic?
We've had to pull some articles about this, all sourced to the YouTube video. Some were pulled because they were from porn sites. One site was blocked tonight because of other disgusting content.
Is Free Republic above this or do we want it to be true so badly that we'll post anything about this from any source?
If we're going to discuss this topic we should at least ask for more proof.
We are smart enough to decide. Talking about rumors is not news, however if proven correct I would expect a link and a article in the Breaking News Section.
Global Warming killed Loch Nest Monster...OK to post.
I say that links to news stories talking about the video are fair game but otherwise we don’t need it. In fact, I think links to youtube videos should be discouraged in general.
>>If we’re going to discuss this topic we should at least ask for more proof.<<
I think we should be open to evidence being found about candidates - real stories do come out in election years.
But since all candidates will have accusations made about them there needs to be real evidence
Schwarzenegger is a good example... lots of smoke that were just sleaze attacks but a couple of real stories mixed in that showed he could act crass.
In the end, none of that was as important that his policies and policies of the guy he was displacing.
So right now I see no point in stories on the Obama allegations unless evidence comes out or the media covers it and then we can discuss the media response.
The Clintons are going to have to work much harder to drag us all into the gutter.
I think it’s wise to wait on this- if it, or similar is true- we’ll get better proof than this. Otherwise-it’s trash.
In the meantime- there’s actual SUBSTANTIVE and factual areas that we have strong disagreements with Obama.
That would rule out discussion of the Clintons, particularly slick willy.
I’m actually going to vote this year based on the policies that the candidates espouse, and not anything to do with any of their personal foibles, alleged or proven.
And what about all the Huma posts? Are these going to be pulled as well?
If we post without proof and it turns out to be fabricated material we are as bad as ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. I don’t think freepers want to stoop to their level. Journalistic fraud is not something to be proud of.
again, I agree. Let the Clintons go there. Obama has much to be criticized for but this road is potentially disastrous.
I see now where the ears come from.
Can I post my exclusive Hill & Huma video?
A moose once bit my sister.
Yeah, but Huma posts have some pictorial value, although need new ones.
I think the more fascinating part of this story, is not the man’s claims themselves, but the timing and motivation.
Hopefully someone somewhere is taking note of this man’s finances? political contacts?
Is he “beholden” to anyone?
This is all very suspicious -and very Clintonesque.
Keep the anti-Obama powder dry until he kills the beast. Keep pulling the posts.
When the Juanita Broaddrick story was first posted here there was even less evidence. We definitely need to be all over this story.
I don’t know how hard this would be to pull off, but you could possibly allow YouTube links after this fashion: add a line in personal information for a forumite’s YouTube channel (or one that they at least claim to be their’s).
Then when someone links to YouTube it only goes to the specified video on that channel, which would mean that they would be at least tacitly claiming responsibility for content behind any link.
The upshot is that they can’t just ‘channel hop’ in their preferences because that would invalidate other links.
It won’t absolutely prevent things like porn or objectionable material, but it should slow it down a great deal.