Thoughts on this?

Candy, I agree David should post a summary of what he is linking to. Instead he just offers a headline and a link to some random person's post on Facebook.

I have actually watched a few of these and it is clear when you ask David about them or point out the actual video is contradictory to his claim he hasn't watched them.  He just takes someone's inflammatory headline or text around the post as a truthful summary of what he is asking us to watch. In other words,  he can't answer those basic context questions you asked because he hasn't watched the video himself.

I wasn't aiming at David Miller in particular.  But, true, when all that comes up is a link, then a 30 second social media fuzzy blurb, I likely won't understand what it is about, who is talking, etc.   I open very few of those, but occasionally the title may grab my attention.   Then I might ask about it.  Rude one-liner pot shot replies (meant for me or someone else) don't help either.

But, yes, at least give a line or two what it concerns.  I'd appreciate it. 

Thanks!

  You are lying. You have asked once or twice and I did not feel the need to respond beause the post I made was self explainatory. The "random" headline is what the post was about and when the item was viewed or read the information was readily understandable to anyone with basic comprehension.  These posts speak for themselves - they might be hard for you to digest because they are written for people who are not flaming liberals.

  Candy - I used to give a line or two but stopped because when I did, seemingly the first response I received was from Lying Lewis - or Toad. They always discounted what I posted and I seldom saw anyone comment about the post. Therefore, I figured that since one of those 2 cretins had responded like they did, they dissuaded others from viewing. I will once again add my 2 cents worth with a line or 2 to future postings with the hopes that others will not let Lying Lewis or Toad lead them to think that the post is not worthwhile.