Obama Administration Asks Publics Help in Compiling an Enemies List

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Straight from one of the horses asses at Whitehouse.gov: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Could any of you imagine the hellish crapstorm that would have erupted had President Bush started asking people to report americans who were saying things he didn't like to hear?

Hope and Change? Change into what?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/obamadictatorImage1.jpg

[NWO Sentryman]

Straight from one of the horses asses at Whitehouse.gov: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)



Could any of you imagine the hellish crapstorm that would have erupted had President Bush started asking people to report americans who were saying things he didn't like to hear?

Hope and Change? Change into what?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/obamadictatorImage1.jpg

Godwin's law.

[GreNME]

Straight from one of the horses asses at Whitehouse.gov: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)



Could any of you imagine the hellish crapstorm that would have erupted had President Bush started asking people to report americans who were saying things he didn't like to hear?

Hope and Change? Change into what?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/obamadictatorImage1.jpg

Edited for civility

[Rolfe]

That's maybe a first - Godwining the thread in the OP!

I don't suppose it occured to the Paranoid One that the request is for the disinformation, not the people passing it on?

You know, I don't blame Obama. I've never seen so much lies, lies and more lies before I started looking at the US healthcare debate. At first I thought it was just lies about universal healthcare and how successful it is (and I note that the British government is getting a bit pissed-off at having one of the best things about living here lied about by Americans). But it's not. They lie about the US system as well. And then they lie about what Obama is actually proposing.

I don't imagine the inbox exists that's big enough, if all of it gets passed on. What they do about it, I can barely imagine.

Rolfe.

[boloboffin]

Yes, the Obitler pictures (I can't believe I'm just giving you that name) should sort of wait until Obama is actually shipping the Birf-n-Turfers off to FEMA camps instead of only looking for arguments that they can respond to as needed. What have you got against free speech, Sword?

[Delscottio]

I pity the poor bugger who has to trawl through that inbox. There's weeks worth of material on this forum alone.

[Rolfe]

Is Beerina still maintaining that Obama's proposals outlaw the purchase of private insurance?

What's that email address again?

Rolfe.

[Monketey Ghost]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296004a7b53e0d4ddf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17141)

Everybody please look here for a moment. I want you all to forget this ever happened. There was no picture, there was no thread, go on about your business and have a nice evening, okay folks?

[Denver]

FYI, I believe the source of this "enemy list" talking point originates today either from Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

I listened to each of them a bit this morning, and heard one of them referencing this with all the above dire warnings.

[dudalb]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/296004a7b53e0d4ddf.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17141)

Everybody please look here for a moment. I want you all to forget this ever happened. There was no picture, there was no thread, go on about your business and have a nice evening, okay folks?

Agreed.Trainwrecked in the OP.
Thought the Email was a dumb move on the White House's part, but the over the top reaction but Limbaugh and company to it is incredibly stupid.

[theprestige]

I object to the "Godwin's Law" meme on two grounds:

One, it gives lazy dissenters entirely too easy an excuse for ignoring a perfectly cromulent point of discussion.

And two, it predictably misdirects people away from considering the very real and very important lessons we should all learn and apply, from the history of how Hitler and Nazism played out. But can we ever discuss those lessons? Or apply them to other historical or current events? Of course not! Why? Godwin's Law!

[Ziggurat]

If Bush did this, a lot of people who are silent now would be throwing hissy fits. It is distasteful for the Whitehouse to be asking people to report on other people's political speech.

However, this is definitely not an enemies list. In fact, one of the things that strikes me about this is how ineffective it is likely to be for any purpose. Who seriously believes that the Whitehouse is going to be able to meaningfully process the flood of email they're likely to get (including the inevitable emails from conservatives who send in Obama's own statements about the healthcare plan as "fishy")? What idiot thought this would be better than having a few staffers (and maybe some interns) sift through popular political blogs and social networking sites to find out what's being said? I'm not scared about any Orwellian consequences from this, but I do find the futility and tone deafness of the move a reason for concern. Is it amateur hour in the Whitehouse?

[boloboffin]

I object to the "Godwin's Law" meme on two grounds:

One, it gives lazy dissenters entirely too easy an excuse for ignoring a perfectly cromulent point of discussion.

When you find a perfectly cromulent point of discussion in the OP, let us know.

[boloboffin]

If Bush did this, a lot of people who are silent now would be throwing hissy fits. It is distasteful for the Whitehouse to be asking people to report on other people's political speech.

However, this is definitely not an enemies list. In fact, one of the things that strikes me about this is how ineffective it is likely to be for any purpose. Who seriously believes that the Whitehouse is going to be able to meaningfully process the flood of email they're likely to get (including the inevitable emails from conservatives who send in Obama's own statements about the healthcare plan as "fishy")? What idiot thought this would be better than having a few staffers (and maybe some interns) sift through popular political blogs and social networking sites to find out what's being said? I'm not scared about any Orwellian consequences from this, but I do find the futility and tone deafness of the move a reason for concern. Is it amateur hour in the Whitehouse?

Has it occurred to you that this is more useful to kick the ant's nest than to gather good information?

[Upchurch]

Could any of you imagine the hellish crapstorm that would have erupted had President Bush started asking people to report americans who were saying things he didn't like to hear?
Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TIPS)


eta: Incidentally, how is what the White House doing any different from Snopes' "Submit A Rumor" link? They're asking you to send along any emails with weird claims, not spy on your neighbors.

[Ziggurat]

eta: Incidentally, how is what the White House doing any different from Snopes' "Submit A Rumor" link? They're asking you to send along any emails with weird claims, not spy on your neighbors.

The difference is that Snopes has no power, but the Whitehouse does. I'm not worried the Whitehouse will do anything, but there absolutely is grounds for holding them to a different standard.

[Ziggurat]

Has it occurred to you that this is more useful to kick the ant's nest than to gather good information?

Kicking ant nests isn't useful.

[Upchurch]

The difference is that Snopes has no power, but the Whitehouse does. I'm not worried the Whitehouse will do anything, but there absolutely is grounds for holding them to a different standard.
'kay. What standard?

[Ziggurat]

'kay. What standard?

I'm not proposing one. I'm suggesting why other people, who may have formed such standards, could be displeased by this without being paranoid nutters.

Personally, it's the incompetence that bugs me.

[Thunder]

Straight from one of the horses asses at Whitehouse.gov: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)



Could any of you imagine the hellish crapstorm that would have erupted had President Bush started asking people to report americans who were saying things he didn't like to hear?

Hope and Change? Change into what?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/obamadictatorImage1.jpg

You know, the more you guys compare Obama to Hitler, the more nuts will believe it, and someone truly crazy will act on it.

Don't believe me? Think no one would do such a thing? Ask Yitzhak Rabin.

:mad:

[Upchurch]

I'm not proposing one. I'm suggesting why other people, who may have formed such standards, could be displeased by this without being paranoid nutters.
...or they could be paranoid nutters.

Well then, what standards have others formed that the White House should be held to?

Personally, it's the incompetence that bugs me.
And that's why Ed invented interns. *shrug*

What would you do if you wanted to deal with a rumor mill that was spreading misinformation about one of your projects? What is the competent way to handle this?

[boloboffin]

Kicking ant nests isn't useful.

Kicking ant nests that your smelly brother has to deal with is very useful.

[Upchurch]

Kicking ant nests that your smelly brother has to deal with is very useful.
I think the metaphor has now escaped me.

[corplinx]

Apparently, the administration doesn't know to go check the free republic forums to find all the misinformation like the rest of us do.

The real problem with this isn't that it rings of snitching and informants. The problem is, its just dumb as rocks. If I wanted to know what kind of misinformation is being distributed about the white house, I just have to hit a few key sites/forums and then watch "Hannity".

[Ziggurat]

...or they could be paranoid nutters.

Some of them definitely are. I didn't intend to deny their existence, only the suggestion that anyone who objected belonged to that category.

What would you do if you wanted to deal with a rumor mill that was spreading misinformation about one of your projects? What is the competent way to handle this?

I already said what I think would be more productive, take less resources, and not raise the ire of the privacy sensitive.

[Ziggurat]

Kicking ant nests that your smelly brother has to deal with is very useful.

OK, but then who's the smelly brother in this scenario? Joe Biden? Is this some way of getting revenge for his crashing the beer summit? :alc:

[Safe-Keeper]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/06/18/business/19thomas-600.jpg
This thread.

Edited for personal attack

Everyone--stop the personal attacks. Also, no hotlinking.

[Upchurch]

Some of them definitely are. I didn't intend to deny their existence, only the suggestion that anyone who objected belonged to that category.
Let me rephrase the question: What is the non-paranoid reason to hold the White House to a different standard than Snopes? Yes, the White House has more power, but what would a non-paranoid person be concerned that the White House might do with that power that Snopes could not?

[Upchurch]

Edited for civility

[Ohmer]

T

You know, I don't blame Obama. I've never seen so much lies, lies and more lies before I started looking at the US healthcare debate.
Rolfe.

The lie machine is this debate is very organized and well funded. For example, you have this site:

http://www.cprights.org/

going on about "Patient Rights". It's run by Rick Scott.

from http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/scott-offers-himself/

under Scott’s leadership, Columbia/HCA plead guilty to a massive array of fraud charges - which resulted in a fraud settlement of $1.7 billion dollars, the largest in U.S history.
Though Scott is quick to raise the debunked myth of public health care options as “rationed care,” his own business model amounted to the rationing of services in order to boost profits. During Scott’s tenure at Columbia/HCA, his cost cutting methods threatened patient care and safety:

# Susan Marks, a technician at one of Scott’s hospitals, was forced to monitor 72 heart monitors by herself. Marks explained, “I have to. I’ve been told you either do it, or there’s the door.” [ABC News, 9/26/97]
# Scott downsized nursing staffs, created conditions where “babies were attended as infrequently as every three hours. Once, the only nurse caring for seven ill infants was so busy she failed to hear an alarm when a baby stopped breathing. A parent dashed to the baby and stimulated breathing, the state report said.” [New York Times, 5/11/97]
# Hospital workers in Florida complained, “gloves come in only one size, and rip easily.” In addition, California employees protested “filthy conditions,” and being “stretched to the limit” as Scott’s company slashed “the ratio of nurses to patients.” [Money Driven Medicine, pg. 119]


This guy is a lying scumbag. He and people like him are spending tremendous amounts of money to convince the uninformed they they will worse off with socialized medicine.

[Ziggurat]

Yes, the White House has more power, but what would a non-paranoid person be concerned that the White House might do with that power that Snopes could not?

Probably nothing. But we have a rather strong tradition in this country of limiting the actions of government without needing to refer to any specific harm. For example, the idea that government should not be collecting private political speech from citizens without their explicit permission is not radical. Whether or not any direct harm would flow from doing so in this case, there are certainly possible cases in which harm could flow from such collections (blacklists, etc), and so it's not unreasonable to want to enforce the principle in general. We recognize in cases of constitutional protections that limiting the abuse of government is most effective when done by limiting the power of government categorically, and not simply by trying to avoid any individual cases of abuse. This case isn't really a constitutional issue (though it may be a legal one), but there's nothing wrong with wanting more restrictive conduct from government than the constitution requires (even federal law recognizes that).

[corplinx]

Has anyone reported the CBO to that address yet?

[kellyb]

I think it's just a way to make "people" (people like me if I weren't so cynical) feel like they're "helping" and participating. Rallying the troops, so to speak. I'd be extremely surprised if anything significant is actually done about anything sent in. Maybe they'll have an official debunking series on the whitehouse blog or something.

[DC]

some right wingers turned totaly nuts the last few months.

[Upchurch]

For example, the idea that government should not be collecting private political speech from citizens without their explicit permission is not radical.
Nor would that the case here. The emails would be provided by the recipients and, unless they are your priest, lawyer, or doctor, there isn't really any expectation of confidentiality. (And even if they were, I doubt this would be covered under that. I dunno.)


This case isn't really a constitutional issue (though it may be a legal one), but there's nothing wrong with wanting more restrictive conduct from government than the constitution requires (even federal law recognizes that).
Restrict what conduct? Setting up an email addy for the public to contact?

[Cleon]

BAC?

Habit, I'm sure.

[dudalb]

Apparently, the administration doesn't know to go check the free republic forums to find all the misinformation like the rest of us do.

The real problem with this isn't that it rings of snitching and informants. The problem is, its just dumb as rocks. If I wanted to know what kind of misinformation is being distributed about the white house, I just have to hit a few key sites/forums and then watch "Hannity".

Agreed.
But the dumbness of the original White House EMail is being exceeded by the dumbness of the overreaction to it.
And let's face it, every President has a s--t list.not for retribution but for the "No way this guy gets a interview or any exclusives from us. And he won't get invited to any White House parties either" type of thing.

[Ziggurat]

Nor would that the case here. The emails would be provided by the recipients and, unless they are your priest, lawyer, or doctor, there isn't really any expectation of confidentiality.

I said nothing about confidentiality. By private I mean non-commercial, non-governmental. And the fact that it's submitted by the recipient doesn't mean that it's submitted with the permission of the originator. Whether or not this is legal is a separate question from whether or not the government should be doing such things. Holding the opinion that the government should not engage in this category of behavior does not make one a nutter.

Restrict what conduct? Setting up an email addy for the public to contact?

No, collecting private political speech by citizens without their permission.

[Distracted1]

Apparently, the administration doesn't know to go check the free republic forums to find all the misinformation like the rest of us do.

The real problem with this isn't that it rings of snitching and informants. The problem is, its just dumb as rocks. If I wanted to know what kind of misinformation is being distributed about the white house, I just have to hit a few key sites/forums and then watch "Hannity".
I don't see it a particularly worthless enterprise on the part of the administration to ask for E-mails like those described by the website to be forwarded.

Certainly there is a great deal of information that can be gleaned from the forwarded E-mails- other than the specifics of the "lies" themselves.

For instance, different E-mails may be being targeted to different age/ sexes/ regions/ income levels/ education levels/ social stratas etc.. etc...

Knowing who is being targeted with which particular disinformation may make it possible to "target" the responses to the various "misinformation" campaigns.

[corplinx]

I don't see it a particularly worthless enterprise on the part of the administration to ask for E-mails like those described by the website to be forwarded.

Certainly there is a great deal of information that can be gleaned from the forwarded E-mails- other than the specifics of the "lies" themselves.

For instance, different E-mails may be being targeted to different age/ sexes/ regions/ income levels/ education levels/ social stratas etc.. etc...

Knowing who is being targeted with which particular disinformation may make it possible to "target" the responses to the various "misinformation" campaigns.

Spam is generally not targetted. If the misinformation is in chain mails, they just need to check their mom's hotmail accounts. That is where all the worst internet chain mails go.

I still think its dumb.

[Upchurch]

I said nothing about confidentiality. By private I mean non-commercial, non-governmental. And the fact that it's submitted by the recipient doesn't mean that it's submitted with the permission of the originator.
That is talking about confidentiality. You are implying that the recipient has an obligation to keep the sender's confidence that he won't share the contents of the email. However, once you send something to someone else, even an email, you have no expectation of ownership. They can forward it to whomever they like without the permission of the originator. It's the nature of the beast.

No, collecting private political speech by citizens without their permission.
They don't need permission for something made freely sent to them. Should the White House be prohibited from viewing YouTube because private political speech is presented there? Of course not. Those who post videos have no expectation that their opinions will only be seen by its intended audience.

Heck, most of these things, a la Snopes, are written with the intention that they will be shared and forwarded.

[David Wong]

It drives the far-right fringe absolutely NUTS that this white house actually intends to combat their propaganda. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

Sorry, guys, but if you use the internet to spread lies, they get to use it to try to counter it. You don't get to blast falsehoods via email without them getting the chance to reply and set the record straight.

You can scream NAZIS!!!! all you want, it just makes you look like fools.

[Ziggurat]

That is talking about confidentiality. You are implying that the recipient has an obligation to keep the sender's confidence that he won't share the contents of the email.

No, I'm not. If you thought I was, you misunderstood the argument. I'm talking about what our government should be doing. No such restrictions necessarily exist on the part of private entities. Nor am I at all concerned in this argument with whether or not the recipient is acting correctly by forwarding information.

[boloboffin]

I think the metaphor has now escaped me.

OK, but then who's the smelly brother in this scenario? Joe Biden? Is this some way of getting revenge for his crashing the beer summit? :alc:

Sorry, I knew it was becoming hard to follow.

The "smelly brother" here -- or brothers, I should say, are the Republican Congress critters having to deal with the increasingly rabid Birf-n-Turfers in their party. The more ramped up they are over nonsense like this and the more the Republicans try to placate them, the more that sensible people see how desperate the Republicans are. People with confidence in their philosophy and position just don't worry about pleasing people like this.

I'm reminded of that animated gif of the penguin giving an opportune flipper to his fellow bird and smashing him down into the water (brilliantly animated). That's the kind of thing I'm snarkily suggesting here. Is it likely? Well, maybe not. But it's a heck of a lot more likely than rolling out the Nazi flags.

There are other options in how to interpret this. A second would be giving people worried about health care passing a place to vent. They get put on an email list for future fundraising and they get directed to a website of FAQs. Most people get their answers from that, and the website will probably give a way of asking other questions. Come to think of it, that's probably what's happening here.

[GreNME]

No, collecting private political speech by citizens without their permission.

Except for that part where the stuff being reported is intentionally placed into public domain and thus making it fair game for any old person who wants to point it out as being a pack of lies, I'm totally with ya there brutha.

It drives the far-right fringe absolutely NUTS that this white house actually intends to combat their propaganda. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

Sorry, guys, but if you use the internet to spread lies, they get to use it to try to counter it. You don't get to blast falsehoods via email without them getting the chance to reply and set the record straight.

You can scream NAZIS!!!! all you want, it just makes you look like fools.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/this.gif

[Skeptic]

You know, I don't blame Obama. I've never seen so much lies, lies and more lies before I started looking at the US healthcare debate.

All totalitarian governments claim they are not really limiting freedom of speech of collecting information about dissenters -- they're just, you know, "fighting disinformation" and want to "protect the public" from the "lies" of the opposition.

The public would get all confused, you see, if it doesn't get its information from the source of all truth and goodness -- official government proclamations.

Sorry. Not buying it. Even if it were the case that every single thing the opponents of Obamacare are saying about it IS a dirty lie, it would STILL not justify this sort of "tell us what your neighbor is thinking about us!" appeal.

If Obama's white house cannot figure out what people are saying about its health-care plan without appealing to citizens to report other citizens' views to the government, that's just too bad.

It drives the far-right fringe absolutely NUTS that this white house actually intends to combat their propaganda. Nuts, nuts, nuts.

I wonder if the White House, in "combating the propaganda", will also report where it got the information about this "propaganda" being spread, as per this White House appeal:

"My fellow Americans, good evening.

"Ms. Jones, from Riverside, Wisconsin, told us her neighbor, Mr. Smith, of 123 Pleasant Drive, claimed that Obamacare will cost the average American too much money. Shame on you, Mr. Smith! The truth is that...

"Now, next item: Mr. Cohen, or 120 west 58th Street, Manhattan, had warned us a Republican by the name of Jones Brezinski lives in his building. Said Republican said Obama is not telling the whole truth about the cut in services Obamacare might entail. It's shocking that Mr. Brezinksi can believe such lies. The truth is...

"Remember, folks: you hear some lie about Obamacare, don't hesitate to report it to us! Our e-mail is, once again, liesaboutobama@whitehouse.com. Call NOW -- it's your CIVIC DUTY!"

Oh wait. That last sentence is NOT satire -- it's actually what the White House is asking Americans to do, isn't it?

[Ziggurat]

The "smelly brother" here -- or brothers, I should say, are the Republican Congress critters having to deal with the increasingly rabid Birf-n-Turfers in their party. The more ramped up they are over nonsense like this and the more the Republicans try to placate them, the more that sensible people see how desperate the Republicans are. People with confidence in their philosophy and position just don't worry about pleasing people like this.

Energizing your opponent's base is a good idea? Yeah, um... I'm pretty sure that wasn't the strategy.

There are other options in how to interpret this.

Leading the pack is incompetence.

A second would be giving people worried about health care passing a place to vent.

Except they aren't asking people to vent.

They get put on an email list for future fundraising

Since that's not how this is being sold, I think the use of these emails for fundraising will piss off many recipients of such unsolicited requests (aka spam). If fundraising is the intention, that falls under incompetence.

[boloboffin]

Well, Ziggurat, any credence to the notion that the White House is using this to find out about arguments countering their most important domestic policy so that they can counter them?

ETA: And you willingly admit that the Birf-n-Turfers are the Republican base, Zig? Wow. So all the Democrats go home, put on their calm, tolerant faces, and try to quell the maniacs that Boehner and the Republicans are egging on, and this makes Obama and the Democrats look bad?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wow, Skeptic. Repeating FOX News talking points when all it says is (As people have been arguing is)

"Please send us disinformation or misinformation so we can counter it."

Impressive!

[fishbob]

. . . For example, the idea that government should not be collecting private political speech from citizens . . . .

Hmmmm - comparing planted loony natterings of disinformation campaigns to private political speech.

You're on the list, buddy.

[Skeptic]

Wow, Skeptic. Repeating FOX News talking points when all it says is (As people have been arguing is)

"Please send us disinformation or misinformation so we can counter it."

Impressive!

It's the same thing. "Please send us misinformation" is the same as "please send us what people are saying against us". All totalitarian governments claim that all criticism of their views is, by definition, "misinformation".

But in any case, it doesn't matter. Even if everything the opponents of Obamacare are saying IS misinformation, it is completely unacceptable for the government to ask citizens to report other citizens' opinions.

Saying you aren't really doing the totalitarian thing since you're only collecting bad opinions -- you know, those of "loonies" or "conspiracy theorists" or "right-wing extremists" -- is simply not to the point.

[DC]

All totalitarian governments claim they are not really limiting freedom of speech of collecting information about dissenters -- they're just, you know, "fighting disinformation" and want to "protect the public" from the "lies" of the opposition.

The public would get all confused, you see, if it doesn't get its information from the source of all truth and goodness -- official government proclamations.

Sorry. Not buying it. Even if it were the case that every single thing the opponents of Obamacare are saying about it IS a dirty lie, it would STILL not justify this sort of "tell us what your neighbor is thinking about us!" appeal.

If Obama's white house cannot figure out what people are saying about its health-care plan without appealing to citizens to report other citizens' views to the government, that's just too bad.



I wonder if the White House, in "combating the propaganda", will also report where it got the information about this "propaganda" being spread, as per this White House appeal:

"My fellow Americans, good evening.

"Ms. Jones, from Riverside, Wisconsin, told us her neighbor, Mr. Smith, of 123 Pleasant Drive, claimed that Obamacare will cost the average American too much money. Shame on you, Mr. Smith! The truth is that...

"Now, next item: Mr. Cohen, or 120 west 58th Street, Manhattan, had warned us a Republican by the name of Jones Brezinski lives in his building. Said Republican said Obama is not telling the whole truth about the cut in services Obamacare might entail. It's shocking that Mr. Brezinksi can believe such lies. The truth is...

"Remember, folks: you hear some lie about Obamacare, don't hesitate to report it to us! Our e-mail is, once again, liesaboutobama@whitehouse.com. Call NOW -- it's your CIVIC DUTY!"

Oh wait. That last sentence is NOT satire -- it's actually what the White House is asking Americans to do, isn't it?


yeah you are so right, amazing insight.
next stop Auschwitz.

[DC]

It's the same thing. "Please send us misinformation" is the same as "please send us what people are saying against us". All totalitarian governments claim that all criticism of their views is, by definition, "misinformation".

But in any case, it doesn't matter. Even if everything the opponents of Obamacare are saying IS misinformation, it is completely unacceptable for the government to ask citizens to report other citizens' opinions.

Saying you aren't really doing the totalitarian thing since you're only collecting bad opinions -- you know, those of "loonies" or "conspiracy theorists" or "right-wing extremists" -- is simply not to the point.

yeah exactly its all the same.

there are so many lies spread about healthcare atm that it is sad but very important those lies get debunked.


but i can understand you, in a black and white world, it is indeed the same thing as the totalitarian regimes do. without those leftist greyscales one can clearly see how evil it is in reality.

[Toke]

I doubt there are any intention to actually use the information.
It is more likely a media stunt to get attention directed on the fact that there are a lot of lying about UHC.

[funk de fino]

I feel this is a mistake and foolish but do not think there is any malice in it.

[The Fool]

All totalitarian governments claim they are not really limiting freedom of speech of collecting information about dissenters -- they're just, you know, "fighting disinformation" and want to "protect the public" from the "lies" of the opposition.


let me guess....when Israel does this its ok...

[quixotecoyote]

let me guess....when Israel does this its ok...

Ok, this thread is starting to warm up. Now all we need is yyreg coming in trying to get posters to justify why their atheism makes them think totalitarianism is a good idea. Maybe we can get what-his-face to make some comparisons to the Russian treatment of Finns.

I sense a party in the works.

[Rolfe]

The lie machine is this debate is very organized and well funded. For example, you have this site:

http://www.cprights.org/

going on about "Patient Rights". It's run by Rick Scott.

from http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/scott-offers-himself/

This guy is a lying scumbag. He and people like him are spending tremendous amounts of money to convince the uninformed they they will worse off with socialized medicine.


Yes, this is America's problem.

Right now, the USA is flushing about 7% of GDP down the toilet. That's how much more it's spending on "healthcare" than just about any other country in the developed world. For this money, it's getting slightly poorer overall health outcomes than comparable countries.

This is not good for the country's economy. It's bad for business competitiveness in a global market where competitors don't have to pour that sort of money into a gaping maw called "employee healthcare". It's bad for retail business, when the spending power of their customer base is curtailed because of the money they have to spend or sequester to insure against adverse health events. It's also bad for the country's workforce, where healthcare costs and needs are often the factor that hold people in poverty and prevent them climbing their way into productive society.

However, that missing 7% of GDP is going somewhere. Somebody is trousering that cash, and not giving America as a society anything in return. One of these somebodys is this Rick Scott person. And he has already trousered enough cash to be able to pay for very significant and influential propaganda efforts. All designed to keep that 7% of GDP flowing in his direction of course.

Someone asked in another thread, why are so many people peddling such ridiculous lies? The answer was, "well, some of them have a direct financial incentive to persuade gullible idiots that universal healthcare is a bad thing, and the rest of them are those gullible idiots."

I see that first link you posted has more videos of people "let down by socialised medicine". I don't think I can look at any more. I've looked at a lot, and most of them have been blatant misrepresentations if not downright lies. (My favourite is still the woman with Cushing's syndrome, a very slowly progressing hormonal disorder, who was presented as someone with a brain tumour who would have died if she hadn't had immediate surgery.) The ones that aren't, are fundamentally different from the equally scary horror stories we see about insured Americans who've been left stranded with needs they couldn't pay for.

Any system can screw up. The big difference is that when a universal healthcare system lets someone down, for example by delaying an elective procedure unacceptably (the usual subject of these anecdotes), the patient has not recieved what they should have received. The system has malfunctioned. Nobody shrugs this off by trying to pretend that the patient had no right to be treated sooner. Lessons are learned from mistakes, and future generations of patients benefit.

In contrast, the US horror stories are almost always about people really being "denied care". People who, for whatever reason, have no right to treatment, and no means of redress. Insurance companies aren't looking at the people they've decided they won't pay out for, and working out how to make sure these people get their treatment in future. They're not looking at the sick people they've turned down for cover and trying to figure out how to get them cover. No, they're trying to reject and revoke cover for as many sick people as they possibly can!

I don't think I can take looking at any more videos of people lying, misrepresenting and being misrepresented. It all reminds me of the time the NRA took a clip from a public demonstration in London which was in fact a protest about being compelled to shoot foxes with guns (when they wanted to chase them with dogs), and presented it as the British people up in arms about being denied the right to carry guns. (The protestors were "pro hunting", so the banners looked about right.) The health insurance companies propaganda is all on about the same level as that.

It's very difficult for Obama. He has a bunch of people who have got very very rich out of the present system, prepared to spend significant chunks of these riches to make sure the money keeps coming their way. And by so doing they contribute to the continuing misery of innumerable ordinary Americans struggling to pay high insurance premiums, high co-pays and deductibles, or simply left without cover either because they couldn't afford it in the first place or because the insurance company cancelled their insurance once they became too expensive. And they drain the economy of money that could be spent on actual benefits.

How does he counter this without climbing down into the gutter beside these scumbags? How does he get it through to people that they are being lied to in order to protect fat-cat profits and bonuses?

I have literally no idea.

Rolfe.

[Upchurch]

So Zig, is Skeptic presenting a principled objection or a paranoid one?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't see a problem or concern here. They're simply compiling the lies and misinformation so that they can, later, rebut them. This is hardly an enemies list.

These conservative nutjobs have gotten very, very ugly over healthcare reform. Death threats and lynching in effigy. It's disgusting.

[Rolfe]

And this week's prize for stating the bleedin' obvious goes to.... :cool:

Rolfe.

[Darat]

...snip...
I see that first link you posted has more videos of people "let down by socialised medicine". I don't think I can look at any more. I've looked at a lot, and most of them have been blatant misrepresentations if not downright lies.

...snip...


Rolfe you were right not to bother:

It starts with a woman claiming that if you have cancer in the UK today you are going to die quicker than anywhere else in Europe.

Even if that is right (and it was certainly broadly true a few years ago, whether the now adequate funding of cancer health care has changed that we won't know for a few years) what it actually means is that in the UK's government controlled health care system you are going to die quicker than in all the other government controlled health care systems in 'Europe'.... !

The next claim is that the raising of the "age limit" for cervical smear testing has pretty much signed a woman's death warrant . Of course this ignores the fact that there isn't *any* national cervical screening programme for women in the USA, no matter what your age.

Never mind that the national screening programme (she is in fact only taking about the NHS England in this instance) is evidence based medicine. And it also ignores the fact that a doctor can always decide that a woman should have a cervical smear test at any age...

The next claim is that it is hard to get hold of some of the newest drugs for cancer without a "big struggle". This is true, as our health care system evaluates new and expensive treatments before incorporating them. Again that is called evidence based medicine. But note the use of her phrase "big struggle", she says this because she knows that can in fact take the health-care system to court to force the NHS to provide you with such medical treatment, and of course once the decision is made for one it means the precedent is set for everyone else. Again in the USA there is no such system.

It then goes onto some people commenting on the Canadian system, I'll leave that to others.

[Upchurch]

These conservative nutjobs have gotten very, very ugly over healthcare reform. Death threats and lynching in effigy. It's disgusting.
um ...what?

[Toke]

And this week's prize for stating the bleedin' obvious goes to.... :cool:

Rolfe.

Come on you love it.:D
And tend to get nominated for it.:)

[Ziggurat]

So Zig, is Skeptic presenting a principled objection or a paranoid one?

Doesn't look paranoid to me. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

Remember when people were complaining about FBI surveillance of protests against the Iraq war? Same thing: nobody at those protests could possibly have an expectation of privacy for those protests, but that wasn't the point of the objections. Again, whether or not you agree with the objection, and whether or not any nutjobs also object to it, the objection can stand without requiring any paranoia.

[fishbob]

It's the same thing. "Please send us misinformation" is the same as "please send us what people are saying against us". All totalitarian governments claim that all criticism of their views is, by definition, "misinformation".

But in any case, it doesn't matter. Even if everything the opponents of Obamacare are saying IS misinformation, it is completely unacceptable for the government to ask citizens to report other citizens' opinions.

Et tu, Skeptic? Comparing planted loony natterings of disinformation campaigns to 'citizens opinions'?

You're on the list too.

[drkitten]

It's the same thing. "Please send us misinformation" is the same as "please send us what people are saying against us". All totalitarian governments claim that all criticism of their views is, by definition, "misinformation".

Ah, yes, the old "Hitler liked chocolate chip cookies" argument.

* All totalitarian governments do this
* All totalitarian governments lie about why they're doing this.
* The Obama administration want to do this.

* Therefore, the Obama administration is a totalitarian regime and lying about why it want to do this.



But in any case, it doesn't matter.

That's right. It doesn't matter because it's a completely stupid argument from start to finish, and you have to back away before anyone actually call you on it.

Even if everything the opponents of Obamacare are saying IS misinformation, it is completely unacceptable for the government to ask citizens to report other citizens' opinions.

Not at all.

[Upchurch]

Doesn't look paranoid to me.
Really? Not paranoid? What would you consider paranoid?


Remember when people were complaining about FBI surveillance of protests against the Iraq war? Same thing: nobody at those protests could possibly have an expectation of privacy for those protests, but that wasn't the point of the objections.
There are two differences. One, the White House is not spying on any on US citizens by providing an email address. And two (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201568_pf.html).

[Ziggurat]

Really? Not paranoid? What would you consider paranoid?

Expecting that Obama will create an enemies list from this. What do you think is paranoid about what Skeptic has written? Not what you disagree with, but what is actually paranoid.

And two (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040201568_pf.html).

And yet, many objections to such surveillance did not depend upon whether or not any abuse actually occurs. So the fact that it occurred in one case but probably will not in another is irrelevant to the validity of such objections.

[Upchurch]

Expecting that Obama will create an enemies list from this. What do you think is paranoid about what Skeptic has written? Not what you disagree with, but what is actually paranoid.
That Obama administration is behaving like a totalitarian government that will read lists of individual names and addresses on television? You're right. How could that seem paranoid?

:rolleyes:


And yet, many objections to such surveillance did not depend upon whether or not any abuse actually occurs. So the fact that it occurred in one case but probably will not in another is irrelevant to the validity of such objections.
You do understand that what the White House is doing is not surveillance, right?

[Ziggurat]

That Obama administration is behaving like a totalitarian government

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of his actual position. Ask him if you think it is.

You do understand that what the White House is doing is not surveillance, right?

Yes. I never said it was, I said it was collecting information. And it is. My point is that it's not unreasonable to want a code of conduct for our government beyond what is required to stop imminent abuse of power.

[Upchurch]

Yes. I never said it was, I said it was collecting information. And it is.
Which isn't a problem. The difference is in how it was collected.


My point is that it's not unreasonable to want a code of conduct for our government beyond what is required to stop imminent abuse of power.
What "imminent abuse of power" would that be?

[Ziggurat]

What "imminent abuse of power" would that be?

That's my whole point, Upchurch: we can (and do) demand restrictions on our government's behavior without any such imminent abuse of power.

[Upchurch]

That's my whole point, Upchurch: we can (and do) demand restrictions on our government's behavior without any such imminent abuse of power.

My apologies. I misread your post.

Why is this one of those behaviors?

[Ziggurat]

Why is this one of those behaviors?

Whether or not this should be is a matter of opinion, on which none of us need agree.

[Safe-Keeper]

The paranoia is strong with this one.

It can't possibly be that the government wants to know, for example, what lies are being repeated the most often so that those lies can be addressed. No, it has to be that the State is planning to send all dissenters of health care reform to concentration camps so that the Universal Health Care race can reign supreme.

Next he'll detain all those who want to be allowed to drive without seat belts, then he'll come for the parents using corporal punishment, and then, when all hope is lost, he'll strike against the citizens who want more money for agriculture and the US will be plunged into a Nazi dystopia state.

[Ziggurat]

The paranoia is strong with this one.

"This one" being who, exactly? If you're referring to me, I suggest you consult my first post in this thread. If you're referring to someone else, you should specify whom you mean.

[Upchurch]

"This one" being who, exactly?
Perhaps the paranoia is strong with this one issue?

Of course, given your reaction, perhaps you could be second runner up, if you like.

[Distracted1]

Doesn't look paranoid to me. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

Remember when people were complaining about FBI surveillance of protests against the Iraq war? Same thing: nobody at those protests could possibly have an expectation of privacy for those protests, but that wasn't the point of the objections. Again, whether or not you agree with the objection, and whether or not any nutjobs also object to it, the objection can stand without requiring any paranoia.
I don't find that the two are the "same thing" at all.

One involves the passive collection of information from those who voluntarily send it. The other is pro-actively surveilling people without their consent

Comparing them with the term "same thing" is the equivalent of comparing a municipal police department to the KGB; because one has a 911 number for people to report the activities of others, and the other also collects information about peoples' activities.

Saying one is "just like" the other can reasonably be called paranoid.

[Ziggurat]

I don't find that the two are the "same thing" at all.

They are the same in one respect: there is no expectation of privacy in either case. I thought this would have been apparent, and that I was not claiming exact equivalence in all regards, but I guess not. From now on, I will try to spell out everything for you so you don't get confused. Feel better now?

[Upchurch]

They are the same in one respect: there is no expectation of privacy in either case.
That would be true if the FBI had limited their observations to the public protests. (source (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/18514prs20040816.html), granted it's ACLU but I can find another if you don't like the ACLU.)

[Ziggurat]

That would be true if the FBI had limited their observations to the public protests.

I'm referring specifically to objections against the FBI monitoring public protests, so it's irrelevant what else they might have done.

[BeAChooser]

Right now, the USA is flushing about 7% of GDP down the toilet. That's how much more it's spending on "healthcare" than just about any other country in the developed world. For this money, it's getting slightly poorer overall health outcomes than comparable countries.

Untrue. Just compare the US and UK. If you extract the effect of things that have nothing to do with the quality of the health care system (like the number of deaths due to accidents and murder) from the life expectancy statistics, US citizens on average have a higher life expectancy than the average Brit. Maybe it has something to do with the 5 year cancer survival rates, which are significantly higher in the US than in Britain. :D

This is not good for the country's economy.

Nor is socialism since as a result of not being as socialist, the US per capita GDP is large enough that Americans can both afford their current health care system and have money left over to purchase things that the average Englishman (given their per capita GDP) can't afford. :D

[Ohmer]

um ...what?

Not exactly death threats and lynching, but this is was Missouri Rep Todd Akin said recently:

Different people From Washington DC have come home the their districts and held town hall meetings and almost got lynched.

His constituents applaud.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32323732

It's about 4:30 into the video. He does back off a bit and say he doesn't really approve of lynching.

What I find disturbing is that the anger may well be real, but it is being produced by an extremely well funded lie campaign led by the very people who actually do some of the things they claim socialized medicine will do. Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA don't drop your coverage when you get old and sick. Insurance companies do. Obama has a really tough job to do. I'm with Rolf. I really don't know how he can fight this.

[Upchurch]

I'm referring specifically to objections against the FBI monitoring public protests, so it's irrelevant what else they might have done.
Evidence that that was what the objections were to?

[dudalb]

I feel this is a mistake and foolish but do not think there is any malice in it.


Applause.

[thaiboxerken]

um ...what?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Rep_Kratovil_hung_in_effigy_by_health_care_protest er_.html

This unidentified man decided he was doing the Tea Party-anti-reform effort a real solid by hanging freshman Maryland Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil in effigy [note the creepily expert knotted noose] with a placard "Congress Traitors The American [and a word that looks like "idol"].

[Toke]

That noose is rather lousy, we made them better as boyscouts. [/nitpick]

[Ziggurat]

Evidence that that was what the objections were to?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39822prs20090610.html

"The ACLU points out that the misinterpretation of First Amendment freedoms is particularly disturbing when viewed in the context of a larger, long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives by the government that have attempted to treat lawful dissent as terrorism. Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon’s monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests"

I guess in this case it was the Pentagon and not the FBI, though the difference is not important to my argument. There were other examples of what they find objectionable given as well, but the ACLU is clearly objecting to surveillance of public protests.

[corplinx]

It can't possibly be that the government wants to know, for example, what lies are being repeated the most often so that those lies can be addressed.

As I've pointed out several times, it is much easier to compile a list of lies by reading FreeRepublic and listening to Hannity than it is to ask people to inform on each other.

We are left with the decision "malicious or retarded?" Unfortunately, some people overestimate the intelligence of the white house enough to assume the former and not the latter by default.

[Upchurch]

There were other examples of what they find objectionable given as well, but the ACLU is clearly objecting to surveillance of public protests.
LOL

Not even close, Zig. The main thrust of that press release is that ACLU is objecting to the DoD labeling public protests as "low-level terrorism". It wasn't the observation of protests in and of themselves that they were objecting to.

[Ziggurat]

LOL

Not even close, Zig. The main thrust of that press release is that ACLU is objecting to the DoD labeling public protests as "low-level terrorism". It wasn't the observation of protests in and of themselves that they were objecting to.

No, Upchurch. The labeling labeling you refer to is the main point of the link, but the surveillance is explicitly cited as objectionable behavior. Yes, they link that behavior to other things they object to as well, but the surveillance itself is objected to.

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. The labeling labeling you refer to is the main point of the link, but the surveillance is explicitly cited as objectionable behavior. Yes, they link that behavior to other things they object to as well, but the surveillance itself is objected to.
Actually, they are using that example (and the others you cropped) as evidence of the effect of the DoD training that has been provided to various law enforcement agencies.

But, yes, if you want to use a very narrowly construed, cherry-picked, out-of-context example, it is almost identical to what Obama is doing.

...if you ignore the fact that it was something else entirely.

Do you have a good example you can point to?

[INRM]

The Prestige,

I object to the "Godwin's Law" meme on two grounds:

One, it gives lazy dissenters entirely too easy an excuse for ignoring a perfectly cromulent point of discussion.

And two, it predictably misdirects people away from considering the very real and very important lessons we should all learn and apply, from the history of how Hitler and Nazism played out. But can we ever discuss those lessons? Or apply them to other historical or current events? Of course not! Why? Godwin's Law!

Agreed


Skeptic,

All totalitarian governments claim they are not really limiting freedom of speech of collecting information about dissenters -- they're just, you know, "fighting disinformation" and want to "protect the public" from the "lies" of the opposition.

The public would get all confused, you see, if it doesn't get its information from the source of all truth and goodness -- official government proclamations.

Good point

Sorry. Not buying it. Even if it were the case that every single thing the opponents of Obamacare are saying about it IS a dirty lie, it would STILL not justify this sort of "tell us what your neighbor is thinking about us!" appeal.

Correct, especially in a country like America where freedom of speech is a protected right

If Obama's white house cannot figure out what people are saying about its health-care plan without appealing to citizens to report other citizens' views to the government, that's just too bad.

Agreed


Ziggurat,

I'm referring specifically to objections against the FBI monitoring public protests, so it's irrelevant what else they might have done.

Actually that's not true. They are monitoring dissidents so that they can target, suppress, and interrogate them. This is not something a free-society should be engaged in.


INRM

[Ziggurat]

Actually, they are using that example (and the others you cropped) as evidence of the effect of the DoD training that has been provided to various law enforcement agencies.

No, they do not. They cite it as part of a pattern, but cause/effect relationships within that pattern are not examined. But it doesn't matter anyways. Whether or not it's an effect of this training, they find it objectionable. Even under your reading, the only reason to cite it as an effect is if it's a negative effect: in other words, they object to surveillance of peace protests.

But, yes, if you want to use a very narrowly construed, cherry-picked, out-of-context example, it is almost identical to what Obama is doing.

I'm not claiming it is, Upchurch. Really, can you ever avoid using strawmen?

[Toke]

As I've pointed out several times, it is much easier to compile a list of lies by reading FreeRepublic and listening to Hannity than it is to ask people to inform on each other.

Yes, it does not serve its stated purpose very well.
We are left with the decision "malicious or retarded?" Unfortunately, some people overestimate the intelligence of the white house enough to assume the former and not the latter by default.

You left out the option PR-stunt.
At worst people will be debating whether it is ok to gather information on malicius lies or not. It's a sure way to get attention on the problem.

[Upchurch]

No, they do not.
Well, if you're going to be intellectually dishonest, why bother?


Whether or not it's an effect of this training, they find it objectionable. Even under your reading, the only reason to cite it as an effect is if it's a negative effect: in other words, they object to surveillance of peace protests.
As I said, if you want to use a very narrowly construed, cherry-picked, out-of-context example, it is almost identical.


I'm not claiming it is, Upchurch. Really, can you ever avoid using strawmen?
"Identical" is a straw man for "same thing"? I thought this would have been apparent, and that I was not claiming exact equivalence in all regards, but I guess not. From now on, I will try to spell out everything for you so you don't get confused. Feel better now?


...or should I just use the [sarcasm] tags?

[GreNME]

They are the same in one respect: there is no expectation of privacy in either case. I thought this would have been apparent, and that I was not claiming exact equivalence in all regards, but I guess not. From now on, I will try to spell out everything for you so you don't get confused. Feel better now?

Public speech is not protected as private speech. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you before you stop making the ridiculous strawman.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39822prs20090610.html

"The ACLU points out that the misinterpretation of First Amendment freedoms is particularly disturbing when viewed in the context of a larger, long-term pattern of domestic security initiatives by the government that have attempted to treat lawful dissent as terrorism. Examples of this shameful pattern can be seen in the Pentagon’s monitoring of at least 186 anti-military protests"

I guess in this case it was the Pentagon and not the FBI, though the difference is not important to my argument. There were other examples of what they find objectionable given as well, but the ACLU is clearly objecting to surveillance of public protests.

So now Bush-era policies are fair game against Obama? Since at no point has the White House called the misinformation terrorism, you're again building men of straw.

[Distracted1]

There are many terms that are appropriate to describe what the white-house website is doing, but "Surveillance" is not one of them.

By that rationale we are all under surveillance by the Gov. at all times because our neighbors can phone the police, fire dept., dept. of homeland security, I.N.S., I.R.S., Dept. of health and human services, Et., al,. whenever they like and report our behavior.

To refer to that as surveillance is, indeed, paranoid.

[Upchurch]

Ye gods! Has no one considered what a massive breach of the First Amendment the 911 system is? :dqueen

[Ziggurat]

Public speech is not protected as private speech. I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you before you stop making the ridiculous strawman.

I never claimed it was. Which (irony of ironies) makes this a strawman.

So now Bush-era policies are fair game against Obama?

No, nor did I suggest any such thing. You evidently have no clue about the meaning of anything I write.

[Ziggurat]

"Identical" is a straw man for "same thing"?

When I already explicitly stated what I meant by that, and explicitly stated that I did not mean it that way, yes, it's a strawman to continue to claim that I did. And since your response mimicks the post in which I made this quite clear, it's obvious that you are not simply ignorant of this, but deliberately dishonest.

[Upchurch]

When I already explicitly stated what I meant by that, and explicitly stated that I did not mean it that way, yes, it's a strawman to continue to claim that I did. And since your response mimicks the post in which I made this quite clear, it's obvious that you are not simply ignorant of this, but deliberately dishonest.
And since I mimicked the part where you said it should be apparent that I did not mean it was an exact equivalence in all regards, you should be well aware that that wasn't what I was implying.

How is it that you come to the conclusion that others misunderstand your points, but it never occurs to you that you might not understand other people's points instead of chalking it up to other people's deliberate dishonesty?

[GreNME]

I never claimed it was. Which (irony of ironies) makes this a strawman.

You certainly did claim that it was private speech (by redefining "private) here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4979143#post4979143).

No, nor did I suggest any such thing. You evidently have no clue about the meaning of anything I write.

I have an idea of what you're doing. You're using red herrings to try to make this an argument about something other than what's actually happening.

[elbe]

As I've pointed out several times, it is much easier to compile a list of lies by reading FreeRepublic and listening to Hannity than it is to ask people to inform on each other.

I could almost think they might want to use it to get an idea of what lies are working and spreading amongst the swing voters, but even that would be inefficient.

[Ziggurat]

You certainly did claim that it was private speech (by redefining "private) here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4979143#post4979143).

Private as in "private sector". There are multiple meanings of the term "private". I did not redefine private, I specified which among its already existing meanings I was using. And I never said anything about speech being protected, so your prior post was indeed a complete strawman, and your response here irrelevant.

[GreNME]

Private as in "private sector". There are multiple meanings of the term "private". I did not redefine private, I specified which among its already existing meanings I was using. And I never said anything about speech being protected, so your prior post was indeed a complete strawman, and your response here irrelevant.

You're wrong. "Private sector" equals "public" in terms of speech. You called it "private political speech" which is an inaccurate and incorrect label. Now you're shifting goalposts.

[Upchurch]

Okay, here's the problem. First, you claim that this is the behavior by the government that should be restricted:
No, collecting private political speech by citizens without their permission.

But when it is pointed out to you that the government doesn't need permission when people forward their emails voluntarily, you counter with this:
Remember when people were complaining about FBI surveillance of protests against the Iraq war? Same thing: nobody at those protests could possibly have an expectation of privacy for those protests, but that wasn't the point of the objections. Again, whether or not you agree with the objection, and whether or not any nutjobs also object to it, the objection can stand without requiring any paranoia.
But of course, expectation of privacy for the protests wasn't what people were upset about in those cases. People weren't upset based on the point of comparison you are drawing. Therefore, there are no grounds for saying people should be upset about what Obama's people are doing because of what Bush's people did back in the day.

If Obama were putting anti-health care bill people on terrorist lists and sending agents to their homes for "interviews" (whatever that means), you might have a point by comparing the two. But he's not and you don't.

[Upchurch]

Private as in "private sector". There are multiple meanings of the term "private". I did not redefine private, I specified which among its already existing meanings I was using. And I never said anything about speech being protected, so your prior post was indeed a complete strawman, and your response here irrelevant.
So, what did you mean when you were concerned about not have the permission of the email's originator?

[Ziggurat]

You're wrong. "Private sector" equals "public" in terms of speech.

That's the more common usage, but if I specify the definition I'm using, I can use a less common definition if I want to. It's absurd to try to claim that it's wrong to do so.

You called it "private political speech" which is an inaccurate and incorrect label. Now you're shifting goalposts.

Shifting the goalpost? No, GreNME. That was what I meant from the beginning. I later clarified what I meant, but I shifted nothing. Do you really not get the difference? No, I guess you don't.

[GreNME]

Upchurch's post in #108 says it all.

[Ziggurat]

So, what did you mean when you were concerned about not have the permission of the email's originator?

I'm not concerned - my objections to this program lie elsewhere (see my first post). The relevance of permission is simply that if you give permission to submit something you write to the government, you obviously won't have any complaint about the government having that. It's just a slightly broader category than submissions of writing by the authors themselves.

[GreNME]

Public speech is not protected. You can't make that an untrue statement, no matter how you attempt to twist reality.

[Upchurch]

The relevance of permission is simply that if you give permission to submit something you write to the government, you obviously won't have any complaint about the government having that. It's just a slightly broader category than submissions of writing by the authors themselves.
And if you don't give permission to submit something you write to the government, then you have issue with the people to whom you sent your writing, not the government.

[Ziggurat]

Okay, here's the problem. First, you claim that this is the behavior by the government that should be restricted:

No, Upchurch. My claim was that wanting such conduct to be restricted is not wrong. Is that too subtle a distinction for you to grasp?

But when it is pointed out to you that the government doesn't need permission when people forward their emails voluntarily

The current state of restrictions on government is not what I'm talking about. Nor are the restrictions on behavior purely legal, there are political pressures that act to restrain government action as well.

But of course, expectation of privacy for the protests wasn't what people were upset about in those cases.

I never said it was. I never even talked about "expectation of privacy". My only use of "private" was meant as in "private sector". In this regard, there is never an expectation of privacy, communications by private citizens ARE private in this sense, even if they are displayed to the entire world.

[Ziggurat]

And if you don't give permission to submit something you write to the government, then you have issue with the people to whom you sent your writing, not the government.

Those are not mutually exclusive, Upchurch.

[Ziggurat]

Public speech is not protected. You can't make that an untrue statement, no matter how you attempt to twist reality.

Funny thing, I never said it was, though one must specify what it's not protected from, or the statement could indeed be untrue.

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. My claim was that wanting such conduct to be restricted is not wrong. Is that too subtle a distinction for you to grasp?
:rolleyes: Semantics.

Then, in saying that wanting such conduct to be restricted is not wrong, you pointed to another situation (i.e. the FBI and the anti-war protesters), but your point of comparison was not applicable to both situation. The ACLU's complaint about anti-war protesters being targeted as potential terrorists is not applicable to someone not wanting Obama to set up a email addy that people could send weird health care claims. It does not support your argument "that wanting such conduct to be restricted is not wrong."

Could you please support this argument with something relevant?

Those are not mutually exclusive, Upchurch.Perhaps, but any issue you have with the government has nothing with whether or not you gave the recipient of your email permission to forward it on.

[Ziggurat]

:rolleyes: Semantics.

No, Upchurch. It's not just semantics. GreNME claiming I'm wrong because I didn't use his preferred definition of "private" is semantics.

Then, in saying that wanting such conduct to be restricted, you pointed to another situation (i.e. the FBI and the anti-war protesters), but your point of comparison was not applicable to both situation.

The point I wanted to make was not that the conduct was the same. The point was that both were examples of wanting to restrict government action beyond what is necessary to prevent immediate abuse. Whether or not I picked the best example to illustrate this is rather irrelevant. Whether or not the two situations are the same in regards to why people wanted the action restricted is completely irrelevant.

[Upchurch]

The point I wanted to make was not that the conduct was the same. The point was that both were examples of wanting to restrict government action beyond what is necessary to prevent immediate abuse. Whether or not I picked the best example to illustrate this is rather irrelevant.
I would argue that picking an example that supports your argument is quite relevant. Will you consider doing so now? Or are you having more fun berating people for not understanding a truly lousy example that doesn't support your argument like you think it does?

[Ziggurat]

Or are you having more fun berating people

No, Upchurch. That's you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4981587#post4981587), not me.

[leftysergeant]

Obama is asking for help in identifying the kinds of lies the Greedy Old Perverts are spreading about his health care programs over the net. Then there are the ones that are not spread by the web. The Nazis and Militia whackadoodles like to engage people in what seems casual conversation in bar rooms and the holding cells at the county jail and that sort of place. Not easy to access over the web.

I have no problem with his doing intel gathering in public venues.

Now, when the Shrub started tapping phones for no good reason, that was when America started slipping into the toilet.

[corplinx]

The Nazis and Militia whackadoodles like to engage people in what seems casual conversation in bar rooms and the holding cells at the county jail and that sort of place. Not easy to access over the web.


They have forums too. I'm sure there is at least one person in the obama admin with a Stormfront account just so they can get a cheap laugh when they need one.

[Upchurch]

So....I would argue that picking an example that supports your argument is quite relevant. Will you consider doing so now?
nothing?

[Marc39]

Obama is asking for help in identifying the kinds of lies the Greedy Old Perverts are spreading about his health care programs over the net. Then there are the ones that are not spread by the web. The Nazis and Militia whackadoodles like to engage people in what seems casual conversation in bar rooms and the holding cells at the county jail and that sort of place. Not easy to access over the web.

I have no problem with his doing intel gathering in public venues.

Now, when the Shrub started tapping phones for no good reason, that was when America started slipping into the toilet.

I believe shrub was tapping phones in an attempt to eavesdrop on terrorists' conversations. I strongly suspect he wasn't so bored as to be interested in hearing about Aunt Sally winning at Bingo at the church picnic.

[Thunder]

I believe shrub was tapping phones in an attempt to eavesdrop on terrorists' conversations. I strongly suspect he wasn't so bored as to be interested in hearing about Aunt Sally winning at Bingo at the church picnic.

what does this have to do with the Palestine Mandate?

[Piggy]

Just proves my point yet again that the Democratic Party is enormously stupid at marketing.

I actually thought Obama was more savvy.

Looks like I was wrong.

By doing this they're simply projecting the image that they don't know what's going on, and they're giving their opponents a great deal of fodder which plays right into the suspicions that Obama's opponents already have of him.

It boggles the mind.

What is it about Democrats that make them so inept at PR?

(That's a serious question, btw.)

[Skeptic]

So much for "dissent being the highest form of patriotism".

Perhaps the "cash for clunkers" scheme should be combined with the "report fishy claims about Obamacare to the White House" scheme: cash for informing on your neighbor's incorrect view.

I suppose $5 would be enough for just e-mailing that your co-worker dislikes Obamacare, with incremental rewards up to $1,000 or so depending on how important your neighbor is in organizing illegal uninformed community meetings to oppose it.

[Skeptic]

Obama is asking for help in identifying the kinds of lies the Greedy Old Perverts are spreading about his health care programs over the net.

Remember, folks -- dissent reporting dissent to the government is the highest form of patriotism!

[leftysergeant]

Remember, folks -- dissent reporting dissent to the government is the highest form of patriotism!

It is not dissent that is targetted, but the kind of lies that bottom-feeders like Winky Palin and the fat deaf pill-popping eunuch are spreading.

[Skeptic]

Yes yes yes, I keep forgetting: it's not REAL dissent if YOU disagree with it.

Sorry about that! I thought that there was something slightly undemocratic about the White House asking the citizenry to report to it about what they heard the neighbors are thinking about its policies, but I guess I was wrong.

Dear leader in the White House is only asking us to report the lies spread about it by bad people, so what's the big deal?

[leftysergeant]

Dear leader in the White House is only asking us to report the lies spread about it by bad people, so what's the big deal?

A wise precaution. This is not oposition research against individuals. It is a simple advisory on ewhat sort of muck the wingnuts are throwing at the wall now. There may even be a few vieled death threats among the messages that some of these bottom-feeders are sprewading around. Any ratiojnal person would want to see the sources of those tracked down and taken down forcefully.

I would, for instance, love to see the dirtbags who suggest that right wingers take weapons to the town halls rounded up and frog marched in shackles to Gitmo to be with their own kind.

The world saw too many of their kind strutting about the streets of Munich in 1930. I would say we have already had enough of them to last into the next century.

[tyr_13]

Dear leader in the White House is only asking us to report the lies spread about it by bad people, so what's the big deal?

I think that you're missing the point that these really are lies. It isn't like it's rounding up people with a different opinion, but if you're going to educate people it's useful to know what the wrong information is that you have to combat.

It isn't dissent. I'm sure there is a lot of dissent along with the misinformation, but they want, and can use, the disinformation. I don't know why you'd label it dissent.

[leftysergeant]

It isn't dissent. I'm sure there is a lot of dissent along with the misinformation, but they want, and can use, the disinformation. I don't know why you'd label it dissent.

Some people can't distinguish between dissent and lying to stir up a mpb to act against their own best interests or to commit criminal acts.

What does an evil slimebag like Simple Sarah care if it makes more people want to off Obama?

[Skeptic]

I think that you're missing the point that these really are lies.

No, I'm not missing the point.

Every country where it is considered appropriate to inform the government about one's friends' and family's political views is a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with whether the "lies" the poor, beleaguered government asks the people to "protect" it from by informing on their nearest and dearest are in fact lies or not: after all, not every rumor about, say, Stalin or Hitler was true.

It is the very idea of reporting them that is the problem.

[Skeptic]

Some people can't distinguish between dissent and lying to stir up a mob to act against their own best interests or to commit criminal acts.

I can tell the difference... but governments famously can't.

Every single totalitarian government claims that it is not stopping real dissent, it is just combating lies that will make the mob get the wrong ideas about their real self interest -- which, by a curious coincidence, always happens to match whatever scheme the government is promoting.

It is, of course, a logical mistake to think that if every totalitarian government does X and Obama does X then Obama is a dictator. But it is a warning sign, since in this case X -- "here is an e-mail to tell the government what awful lies your old' nasty neighbor said about us" -- is the kind of thing that, until now at least, more or less only totalitarian governments considered legitimate.

[tyr_13]

No, I'm not missing the point. Every country where it is considered appropriate to inform the government about one's friends' and family's political views is a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with whether the "lies" the poor, beleaguered government asks the people to "protect" it from by informing on their nearest and dearest are in fact lies or not. It is the very idea of reporting them that is the problem.

No, you're building your entire argument on a tremendously faulty premise. You presume that this is 'inform the government about one's friends' and family's political views' when that is not the case.

They are lies. I don't understand what your problem is with this point. They don't care about the fact that people are opposed to the new health care reform, but that they are being told flat out false statements. These are things like, "Britain's health care system costs more than the current US one," or, "you can't buy private insurance under this new plan." These aren't political dissent. They're lies.

Why would it be ok to pass on this misinformation to twenty facebook friends, but not to the White House? That's frankly, bizarre. All this does is save some intern's time looking it up.

[tyr_13]

It is, of course, a logical mistake to think that if every totalitarian government does X and Obama does X then Obama is a dictator. But it is a warning sign, since in this case X -- "here is an e-mail to tell the government what awful lies your old' nasty neighbor said about us" -- is the kind of thing that, until now at least, more or less only totalitarian governments considered legitimate.

The last time I checked, every Congressman/woman and Senator I've every talked to actively encouraged sending them this kind of information. The only difference I can see is that it is specific to health care reform, which actually makes it a hell of a lot less likely to be 'political enemy listing.'

[KoihimeNakamura]

Skeptic has already been corrected, refuses to listen. As it is, while it was a bad misstep, it's far from the enemies list people portray it to be.

[DC]

No, I'm not missing the point.

Every country where it is considered appropriate to inform the government about one's friends' and family's political views is a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with whether the "lies" the poor, beleaguered government asks the people to "protect" it from by informing on their nearest and dearest are in fact lies or not: after all, not every rumor about, say, Stalin or Hitler was true.

It is the very idea of reporting them that is the problem.

Hey, once Imperator Obama will outlaw those anti healthcare lies and put the liars in jail or working colonies, you maybe have a point, but so far that isnt the case.

[Upchurch]

Skeptic, would you be ever so kind as to point out where the White House is asking citizens to report the names of dissenters and not the content of rumors?

That'd be great, thanks.

[Safe-Keeper]

I believe shrub was tapping phones in an attempt to eavesdrop on terrorists' conversations. I strongly suspect he wasn't so bored as to be interested in hearing about Aunt Sally winning at Bingo at the church picnic.Wow. We're in 2009, and there are still people defending Bush's illegal wire-tapping. Wow, just wow.

[Marc39]

Wow. We're in 2009, and there are still people defending Bush's illegal wire-tapping. Wow, just wow.

Yeah, and Lincoln suspended constitutionally protected habeas corpus rights during the Civil War.

When it comes to the safety and security of the country and of my family, a little wire-tapping in search of terrorists planning their next 9/11 is a sensible price to pay.

[Piggy]

Yeah, and Lincoln suspended constitutionally protected habeas corpus rights during the Civil War.

When it comes to the safety and security of the country and of my family, a little wire-tapping in search of terrorists planning their next 9/11 is a sensible price to pay.

Funny, that's not what the framers of the Constitution thought.

Their time was rife with what we'd now call terrorism -- just look at the history of the various Indian wars, and violence between patriots and loyalists during the Revolution -- and yet they still wrote limitations and protections into the Constution because they knew that an unchecked government is an invitation to tyranny.

Modern history, in the form of Richard Nixon, shows that even our federal executives can be all too willing to use secrecy and espionage under the guise of "national security" to destroy their political enemies and retain power.

Also, the existing FISA laws allowed for retroactive warrants up to 72 hours. The Bush arguments regarding delays never made any sense. The only plausible reason for the warrantless wiretapping program was that they were using illegal wiretaps which they believed would not be allowed by our courts, which have been extremely generous under FISA.

As of now, there's no evidence that the "Hoover" strategy (suck up everything like a vacuum cleaner) thwarted anything at all or kept us any safer.

As far as I can see, existing laws were adequate to keep track on terrorist targets.

If they were not, I doubt the Bush administration would have had any problem in expanding them by legal means.

[Marc39]

Funny, that's not what the framers of the Constitution thought.

Their time was rife with what we'd now call terrorism -- just look at the history of the various Indian wars, and violence between patriots and loyalists during the Revolution -- and yet they still wrote limitations and protections into the Constution because they knew that an unchecked government is an invitation to tyranny.

Modern history, in the form of Richard Nixon, shows that even our federal executives can be all too willing to use secrecy and espionage under the guise of "national security" to destroy their political enemies and retain power.

Also, the existing FISA laws allowed for retroactive warrants up to 72 hours. The Bush arguments regarding delays never made any sense. The only plausible reason for the warrantless wiretapping program was that they were using illegal wiretaps which they believed would not be allowed by our courts, which have been extremely generous under FISA.

As of now, there's no evidence that the "Hoover" strategy (suck up everything like a vacuum cleaner) thwarted anything at all or kept us any safer.

As far as I can see, existing laws were adequate to keep track on terrorist targets.

I they were not, I doubt the Bush administration would have had any problem in expanding them by legal means.

Nobody can possibly suggest the framers of the Constitution had any concept of the extraordinary existential dangers the US would be facing with the likes of al-Qaeda and expect to be taken seriously.

[Thunder]

I am proud to supply the White House with the names of politicians and media folks who are spreading lies about Obama's health care ideas.

If they have nothing to hide...they should not fear being exposed.

[Thunder]

Also, the existing FISA laws allowed for retroactive warrants up to 72 hours. The Bush arguments regarding delays never made any sense. The only plausible reason for the warrantless wiretapping program was that they were using illegal wiretaps which they believed would not be allowed by our courts, which have been extremely generous under FISA. .

This alone makes warrentless wiretapping unneccessary. If you can get retroactive approval 3 days after the wiretapping has already begun, then there is no problem.

Bush and Cheney simply hated the idea that anyone would DARE tell them what is and is not legal.

"If the President does it..it is not..illegal". This was the Bush/Cheney state of mind.

[INRM]

Parky 76,

Obviously you have never heard of the Soviet Union and the effects of people informing on the misguided idea they are helping get rid of "enemies of the state". Many of those informed upon were simply critics and not enemies.

In regards to your statement about Bush and Cheney engaging in warrantless wiretapping, and that Bush and Cheney operated under the authoritarian attitude that "When the President does it, it's not illegal" -- you're right there.


INRM

[kellyb]

Parky 76,

Obviously you have never heard of the Soviet Union and the effects of people informing on the misguided idea they are helping get rid of "enemies of the state". Many of those informed upon were simply critics and not enemies.



I'm pretty sure it was a joke. (remember the Bush supporters who said of the wiretapping "If you're not a terrorist, then you have nothing to fear"?)

[Piggy]

Nobody can possibly suggest the framers of the Constitution had any concept of the extraordinary existential dangers the US would be facing with the likes of al-Qaeda and expect to be taken seriously.

Nobody could suggest otherwise and expect to be taken seriously.

But I take issue with your claim that al-Qaeda is an existential threat to the US. It is not. There is no way that that band of terrorists could bring down the US.

During the founders' time, there were many truly existential threats to the fledgling nation. They chose to limit government anyway, because they viewed unlimited central power as an existential threat to liberty.

[eeyore1954]

Kicking ant nests isn't useful.

100,000,000,000,000,000 ants probably agree

[leftysergeant]

Nobody can possibly suggest the framers of the Constitution had any concept of the extraordinary existential dangers the US would be facing with the likes of al-Qaeda and expect to be taken seriously.
Get a clue. Try reading some history. The Nazis were far more a threat to the United States than al Qaeda ever could be. We are not likely to ever voluntarily convert to Islam, but the Nazi Party was active in the USA up until December of 1941 and people did not think of them as the vermin they were.

Nor did FDR go to the lengths that the Shrub has to limit human rights or overturn the rule of law and we did very nicely in squaring their garbage away, didn't we?

The Shrub did not do half as well against less than one half as many enemy troops, even with his knuckle-dragging Draconianism, than FDR did against the most powerful enemy this country ever faced.

That you approve of the Shrub's tactics just tells me that you are ignorant of history and military science and lacking in the moral courage that is required of a citizen of a free nation.

[eeyore1954]

Skeptic, would you be ever so kind as to point out where the White House is asking citizens to report the names of dissenters and not the content of rumors?

That'd be great, thanks.

Didn't the White house do that by asking
If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

They asked for the emails not just the content of the email.
Very poor public relations by the White House and IMO clearly Bush would have vilified for a similar stunt.


Lefty do you believe what Bush did compares to the internment of Japanese Americans or to trying to stack the Supreme Court.

[DC]

but atleast we know now what those FEMA camps are for, for those opposing Imperator Obama. happy reconditioning Skeptic and BAC.

[Upchurch]

Didn't the White house do that by asking

They asked for the emails not just the content of the email.
Not really, no.

[leftysergeant]

Yeah, and Lincoln suspended constitutionally protected habeas corpus rights during the Civil War.

And how many of the people held under those conditions were tortured and deprived of their property?

BTW, he was defendiung against a DOMESTIC enemy.

When it comes to the safety and security of the country and of my family, a little wire-tapping in search of terrorists planning their next 9/11 is a sensible price to pay.

There is no proof that it worked and there is no proof that Ashcroft and Gonzo only used the information they gathered for legitimate purposes. Given their utter lack of human decency, there is more than ample grounds to think that they did not.

[leftysergeant]

And if you don't give permission to submit something you write to the government, then you have issue with the people to whom you sent your writing, not the government.

The purpose of a viral email is that it be passed on.

If the original sender does not want it passed on to as government dweeb, too freaking bad. Chances are it winds up there regardless. I don't want those creeps clogging my email in box with their slime, and I am sure that a lot of other people feel the same way.

Since they have, already, in sending out an email with the intent that it be passed along, granted the right to forward it, they have no right to snivel when they send it to someone who gets pissed off at having recieved it and it gets passed along to the government.

[leftysergeant]

Lefty do you believe what Bush did compares to the internment of Japanese Americans or to trying to stack the Supreme Court.

No. The Japanese were not tortured and punished and kept incommunicado and isolated from their families.

The Supreme Court part is kind of wobbly.

Special rendition and wars of aggression are criminal acts with no justification. Deliberately driving people insane is a heinous crime, and Rummy and Gonzo and the drooling idiot who appointed them should spend the rest of their lives in jail for it.

[DC]

shouldnt the antiobamatics be happy?
looks like the Government is interested in their point of view and arguments.

Why dont you send yourself your arguments and point of views to the whitehouse.gov?

And comparing it to unwarranted phone tapping is just wrong.

Here the government public asked to send in information. its no secret.

unwarranted phone tapping happened in secret, the public was not informed beofre it happened. iirc

[Safe-Keeper]

Nobody can possibly suggest the framers of the Constitution had any concept of the extraordinary existential dangers the US would be facing with the likes of al-QaedaWhenever I hear someone say this, I'm just at a 100% loss for words. As if Al-Qaida's evils are somehow unprecedented in world history.

When it comes to the safety and security of the country and of my family, a little wire-tapping in search of terrorists planning their next 9/11 is a sensible price to pay.Totally agreed. If the cops think someone is up to no good, they should get a warrant and start listening in, as they've always been able to.

Oh, you mean illegally wire tapping people and their families and loved ones without a warrant, without ever telling them they've been tapped. Sorry, not going to happen.

[ravdin]

A quote from the White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! I thought that dissent was patriotic!

There would have been quite a strong reaction four years ago if a blogger for the Bush administration called for antiwar emails or websites to be reported to the White House, yet for some reason the Obama administration gets a pass for its agenda.

For the record, I support health care reform- it's calling on your fellow citizens to report dissent to the government that I find objectionable.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

ETA: I'm late to the party and I created a new thread that's been merged in, in case you're wondering why the OP topic has been reposted.

[INRM]

Ravdin,

It is patriotic to dissent against government misconduct.

Unfortunately, like with the Bush administration, in the Obama administration dissent = treason.

I'd have to agree with you though that if this happened under Bush people would have a cow... so why aren't people having a cow now?


INRM

[INRM]

Piggy,

During the founders' time, there were many truly existential threats to the fledgling nation.

Correct

They chose to limit government anyway, because they viewed unlimited central power as an existential threat to liberty.

Very good point!


LeftySergeant,

There is no proof that it worked and there is no proof that Ashcroft and Gonzo only used the information they gathered for legitimate purposes. Given their utter lack of human decency, there is more than ample grounds to think that they did not.

Thank god somebody finally said that!


INRM

[ravdin]

It is not dissent that is targetted, but the kind of lies that bottom-feeders like Winky Palin and the fat deaf pill-popping eunuch are spreading.

All of which is on the public record. So why ask citizens to forward their emails to the government?

[ravdin]

Just proves my point yet again that the Democratic Party is enormously stupid at marketing.

I actually thought Obama was more savvy.

Looks like I was wrong.

By doing this they're simply projecting the image that they don't know what's going on, and they're giving their opponents a great deal of fodder which plays right into the suspicions that Obama's opponents already have of him.

It boggles the mind.

What is it about Democrats that make them so inept at PR?

(That's a serious question, btw.)

That's pretty much my take- I'm not reading sinister motives into one blog entry, but it's an inept PR move.

If we call the Obama administration on their BS (I stand by my assertion that the man is less than perfect and his underlings make errors of judgment from time to time), it will keep them honest and our government will serve us better in the long run. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people on both sides who are all too willing to paint the opposition with a very wide brush. We're not well served by the "you're with us or against us" mentality.

[Dr Adequate]

Why is this thread on its fifth page?

A bunch of crazy paranoid rightists told a stupid lie.

This is news?

[ravdin]

Why is this thread on its fifth page?

A bunch of crazy paranoid rightists told a stupid lie.

This is news?

What lie are you referring to? The White House is asking the public to report dissenting emails and websites to them. This is a fact, which you can see for yourself in the official White House blog.

[Upchurch]

What lie are you referring to? The White House is asking the public to report dissenting emails and websites to them. This is a fact, which you can see for yourself in the official White House blog.
Yeah, didn't catch where it said anything about "patriotic" or "unpatriotic". Where was that?

[lomiller]

There would have been quite a strong reaction four years ago if a blogger for the Bush administration...

Why do you say that? IMO it’s a matter of course for politicians to keep track of the arguments being made against them, in fact it would be downright incompetent for them not to. If this were a memo to the FBI or CIA yes it would be because these organizations should not be injecting themselves into politics, but clearly that isn’t the case here.

Frankly this whole thing smacks of people whining because someone may call them on it when they try to circulate unsupportable political dogma.

[ravdin]

Yeah, didn't catch where it said anything about "patriotic" or "unpatriotic". Where was that?

I'll only speak for myself- in my own post I said that dissent is patriotic. I'm comfortable standing by that statement.

[DC]

I'll only speak for myself- in my own post I said that dissent is patriotic. I'm comfortable standing by that statement.

Dissent = Disinformation ?

[ravdin]

Why do you say that? IMO it’s a matter of course for politicians to keep track of the arguments being made against them, in fact it would be downright incompetent for them not to. If this were a memo to the FBI or CIA yes it would be because these organizations should not be injecting themselves into politics, but clearly that isn’t the case here.

Well, how about keeping track by reading the opposition's blogs, subscribing to their email newsletters, and in general doing your homework? I don't think any of us oppose using information that's in the public record.

Frankly this whole thing smacks of people whining because someone may call them on it when they try to circulate unsupportable political dogma.

Disagreement with the Obama administration's health care policy proposals ≠ unsupportable political dogma. Much of it is of course, but the call to forward dissenting emails to the WH doesn't account for these subtle distinctions.

[Piggy]

That's pretty much my take- I'm not reading sinister motives into one blog entry, but it's an inept PR move.

The resulting Web site went online today, btw. Unfortunately, the FAQ page is not written in colloquial dialect. It should have been. (Sounds amazingly like Obama giving a policy speech.)

I haven't checked out the videos yet.

[Piggy]

Well, how about keeping track by reading the opposition's blogs, subscribing to their email newsletters, and in general doing your homework? I don't think any of us oppose using information that's in the public record.

That's what gets me, too. It's not like this stuff is secret. Can't Obama's pizza kids find this stuff? Hell, you can hardly avoid it!

They would have done better to simply put up the site and do a PR blitz about it without this participatory element, which you'd think would be superfluous.

[leftysergeant]

I'll only speak for myself- in my own post I said that dissent is patriotic. I'm comfortable standing by that statement.

But lying is unethical and harmful to the general public.

Dissent is valuable when it reveals truths that are inconvenient to the government. Lying hampers valid government activities and may cause people to act against their own best interests or the common good.

[ravdin]

But lying is unethical and harmful to the general public.

Dissent is valuable when it reveals truths that are inconvenient to the government. Lying hampers valid government activities and may cause people to act against their own best interests or the common good.

What's your point? Should we call the feds every time someone lies about an item on the President's political agenda?

[eeyore1954]

Not really, no. They asked for the email to be forwarded which is telling on who sent it. It would have been smarter to just ask for content of the email and not the sender.



.

[Upchurch]

They asked for the email to be forwarded which is telling on who sent it. It would have been smarter to just ask for content of the email and not the sender.
Perhaps it would have been smarter, but do you think they are really asking for the name of the person sending it? If you just sent the content and deleted all the sender information, do you think they would twirl their mustaches and say, "Curses! Foiled again!"?

[Darth Rotor]

Now, when the Shrub started tapping phones for no good reason, that was when America started slipping into the toilet.
Nope, the slipping happened about the time nuclear power plants stopped getting lined up and licensed due to the fear mongering from the left on nuclear power. We have had a crap energy policy for over thirty years, which Detroit/auto industry kick started and the anti nuke morons nailed shut, with help from the coal industry.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

By the way, the White House is being damned dishonest.

If you don't have your position clearly and unambiguously spelled out and clarified, you leave the opening for opponents, on both merit and party basis, to attack your program. That is politics in America.

The assertion that dissent and disagreement with the still less than crystal clear "plan" for health care are by defalut "lies" is also blatantly dishonest.

On the other hand, some of the disagreement is pure horsecrap.

DR

[Upchurch]

By the way, the White House is being damned dishonest.

If you don't have your position clearly and unambiguously spelled out and clarified, you leave the opening for opponents, on both merit and party basis, to attack your program. That is politics in America.

The assertion that dissent and disagreement with the still less than crystal clear "plan" for health care are by defalut "lies" is also blatantly dishonest.

On the other hand, some of the disagreement is pure horsecrap.

DR

That's just it, DR. It is the "pure horsecrap" that we're talking about here that is so completely divorced from the actual bill or any variation thereof. The final bill could be the most consicely written thing in the history of human law and these criticisms would be equally applicable to it. Which is to say: not at all.

I don't care how good of a politician, thinker, and/or student of human nature you are, there is no way someone could anticipate all the possible non sequitor criticisms the CTers might have. The best you can do is to defuse the BS as quickly as possible with a solid debunking. To do that, you have to have an inkling as to what the BS before it becomes a meme.

[Prometheus]

I don't see any call to report "dissent" anywhere in that blog entry. They ask people to send them anything that "seems fishy", ie. is potentially misinformation. So what? And yes, I can certainly imagine that some left-wing morons would object if the same request had come from the Bush administration; again, so what? Morons are morons wherever they happen to fall along the political spectrum.

[Darth Rotor]

Morons are morons wherever they happen to fall along the political spectrum.
Or whatever side of the aisle they sit on in Congress. ;)

[Piggy]

The best you can do is to defuse the BS as quickly as possible with a solid debunking. To do that, you have to have an inkling as to what the BS before it becomes a meme.

The assumption there is that these ideas simmer underground in some unavailable space before leaping forth as memes.

I don't believe this is the case.

Surely the administration can simply browse the radical Web sites, get on their email and snail mail lists, etc. It's not like 912 Patriots can vet email addresses.

This call for input baffles me.

ETA: Then again, you've got FOIA, and such activity might raise eyebrows if revealed. Aye, there's the rub. Devil and the deep blue sea.

[Piggy]

Actually, seen in the light of FOIA, it makes more sense, politically.

Yes, they could have staffers monitor these groups, but then what do you say when some FOIA request potentially reveals that the administration is keeping tabs on the political opposition on the taxpayer dime?

You could classify it, but even that will likely come out 40 years later, and will look even worse for having been classified.

[Prometheus]

They asked for the email to be forwarded which is telling on who sent it. It would have been smarter to just ask for content of the email and not the sender.



.

Or whatever side of the aisle they sit on in Congress. ;)

Yeah, that too. :)

Actually, seen in the light of FOIA, it makes more sense, politically.

Yes, they could have staffers monitor these groups, but then what do you say when some FOIA request potentially reveals that the administration is keeping tabs on the political opposition on the taxpayer dime?

You could classify it, but even that will likely come out 40 years later, and will look even worse for having been classified.

Good point. I wonder if that actually occured to them. Honestly, to me it just seems like a somewhat naive attempt to appear hip to denizens of the blogosphere.

[Piggy]

Good point. I wonder if that actually occured to them. Honestly, to me it just seems like a somewhat naive attempt to appear hip to denizens of the blogosphere.

I'm sure it occurred to the Office of White House Counsel.

But that doesn't mean that it's not also an attempt to appear hip.

I wonder which brand of beer Obama drinks when he's in a cybercafe?

(When he's down this way, he drinks Pabst.)

[Upchurch]

The assumption there is that these ideas simmer underground in some unavailable space before leaping forth as memes.

I don't believe this is the case.
Well, what I was specifically assuming is that, in this case, a meme isn't significant until it is picked up on by the offline media (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.). That may not be valid.

[jakesteele]

That's maybe a first - Godwining the thread in the OP!

I don't suppose it occured to the Paranoid One that the request is for the disinformation, not the people passing it on?

You know, I don't blame Obama. I've never seen so much lies, lies and more lies before I started looking at the US healthcare debate. At first I thought it was just lies about universal healthcare and how successful it is (and I note that the British government is getting a bit pissed-off at having one of the best things about living here lied about by Americans). But it's not. They lie about the US system as well. And then they lie about what Obama is actually proposing.

I don't imagine the inbox exists that's big enough, if all of it gets passed on. What they do about it, I can barely imagine.

Rolfe.

"If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

If you send it to them, wouldn't they be able to track it to its source by the URL? Not good at computers, but I believe URL is the proper term. If not, some kind of address or some way to identify it.

[DC]

i was thinking about sending in BAC's newest threads about UHC, but im unsure, dont want him to end up in a Fema Camp :D

[boloboffin]

Somebody pitched Obama the softball:

ZkXS3ChlNXE

ETA: OHNOES!!!! They are publishing the enemies list ONLINE!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

[Upchurch]

Somebody pitched Obama the softball:

ZkXS3ChlNXE

SEE!?! He denied it. That is just what you would expect someone asking people to turn their family and friends in for an enemies list to do. That proves it!

[Darat]

What lie are you referring to? The White House is asking the public to report dissenting emails and websites to them. This is a fact, which you can see for yourself in the official White House blog.

That is not what the quote you posted said.

[DC]

SEE!?! He denied it. That is just what you would expect someone asking people to turn their family and friends in for an enemies list to do. That proves it!

thats what all Totalitarian Regimes do !!!

you know the USSR said the exact.....

ah bull, ill just wait for Skeptics next post :D

[ZirconBlue]

From what I've heard (via NPR, mostly), it seems the Obama administration is big on using some of the ideas of Behavioral Psychology to influence the public. In that vein, I think there might be another reason for this request: By asking people to forward "fishy" information, you are priming them to look for such information. Perhaps they're hoping that this will cause people to turn a more critical eye toward any (dis)information they come across.

I used to be somewhat credulous of the email forwards I received in the 90s. Once I caught onto the idea of checking snopes for such things, I found my initial default position toward such emails to have switched from "believe unless proven false" to "disbelieve until confirmed". I could see something similar coming into play here. Of course the people who want to believe that the various lies and distortions about the healthcare reform proposals (eg. that they encourage senior citizens to end their lives early) just aren't going to be swayed, regardless.

[lomiller]

Well, how about keeping track by reading the opposition's blogs, subscribing to their email newsletters, and in general doing your homework? I don't think any of us oppose using information that's in the public record.

This is exactly what the memo in question is asking people to do. Personally I think it’s silly to suggest Obama’s staff should be expected to read the entire internet, and that asking it’s supporters to note what arguments/rumor seem to be circulating is a perfectly valid information gathering technique.


Disagreement with the Obama administration's health care policy proposals ≠ unsupportable political dogma.

The possibility of legitimate dissent doesn’t preclude the presence of political dogma.

[Prometheus]

From what I've heard (via NPR, mostly), it seems the Obama administration is big on using some of the ideas of Behavioral Psychology to influence the public. In that vein, I think there might be another reason for this request: By asking people to forward "fishy" information, you are priming them to look for such information. Perhaps they're hoping that this will cause people to turn a more critical eye toward any (dis)information they come across.

I used to be somewhat credulous of the email forwards I received in the 90s. Once I caught onto the idea of checking snopes for such things, I found my initial default position toward such emails to have switched from "believe unless proven false" to "disbelieve until confirmed". I could see something similar coming into play here. Of course the people who want to believe that the various lies and distortions about the healthcare reform proposals (eg. that they encourage senior citizens to end their lives early) just aren't going to be swayed, regardless.

That's a very interesting point. It would certainly answer the criticism that this was a PR blunder. Of course, they could have just suggested that people go and check out "fishy" emails on Snopes rather than forward them to the White House.

[Toke]

I doubt there are any intention to actually use the information.
It is more likely a media stunt to get attention directed on the fact that there are a lot of lying about UHC.

Post 54.

[thaiboxerken]

That's a very interesting point. It would certainly answer the criticism that this was a PR blunder. Of course, they could have just suggested that people go and check out "fishy" emails on Snopes rather than forward them to the White House.

But then the critics would say that Snopes is compiling the enemies list for them instead.

[Darth Rotor]

But then the critics would say that Snopes is compiling the enemies list for them instead.
Why?

Their beef isn't with Snopes, it is with Obama.

[quixotecoyote]

Why?

Their beef isn't with Snopes, it is with Obama.

And once Obama recommends the people check/send claims to Snopes?

[thaiboxerken]

Why?

Their beef isn't with Snopes, it is with Obama.

Isn't that the point? Their beef is with Obama, not with anything he's actually done or said.

[Mumbles]

Why?

Their beef isn't with Snopes, it is with Obama.

Their beef is with whoever doesn't agree with them. This is, after all, a group that got "death panels to kill children" out of medicare paying for living will consultations, and then attacked Rahm Emmanuel's brother using a handful of completely out of context quotes.

[thaiboxerken]

Correct. And now they're claiming that Obama is pushing for death panels for the elderly.

[Safe-Keeper]

Their beef is with whoever doesn't agree with them. This is, after all, a group that got "death panels to kill children" out of medicare paying for living will consultations, and then attacked Rahm Emmanuel's brother using a handful of completely out of context quotes. The death panel will also review the enemies list for the FEMA Reserve Work Force Relocation Program.

[DC]

there are no death panels to kill elderly nor kids....
the panels just decide and send the death squads.

[Safe-Keeper]

Ooooh. Sorry, I had them confused with the Eugenics Panel. My bad.

As an aside, Snopes still needs your help in compiling an enemy list (http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/comments/webmail.asp).

[Lonewulf]

Okay, so I'm a hypocrite for not considering this a big deal?