RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

FullCircle -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:35:55 PM)
I'm reporting Captain Birdseye, damn white bearded terrorist scum. let us together review the evidence. 1) He has a beard 2) Nobody can find any trace of his actual existence 3) He publicises his fishy products of fear in video tapes leaked to the television media.

TheHeretic -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark I made the mistake once of going to whitehouse.com once It looks like whoever had that domain name finally found a buyer, Mark. It's a political youtube sort of thing now, coming up on an official launch next month.

DomKen -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Funny thing, Ken, even the ACLU has the intellectual honesty to call this a, "bad idea that could send a troublesome message." Seems the ACLU supposedly only told this to FNC. It's not on the ACLU site and appears in no other news articles. I've already established by a huge preponderance of the evidence that FNC lies so I strongly doubt that even if FNC has an ACLU statement it actually says what they claim.

GreedyTop -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop Theyre asking for casual conversation relating to rumours surrounding the health care reform issue. ETA:: taken from the website AND from your OP: These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since you seemed to miss it the first time, TH.

dcnovice -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:51:26 PM)
<fast reply> Here's what FOX News says about the ACLU statement: The ACLU said in a statement to FOXNews.com that the White House blog is a "bad idea that could send a troublesome message." But the organization added, "While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration's health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech." I couldn't find the statement anywhere on the ACLU site.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 12:54:32 PM)
The ACLU also defends pedophiles. I don't let their opinion on that issue influence the way I view the matter, why would i let their opinion on this issue influence the way i look at it?

dcnovice -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 1:10:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda The ACLU also defends pedophiles. I don't let their opinion on that issue influence the way I view the matter, Here's a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania about the "defends pedophiles" charge: Myth: The ACLU supports pedophilia and the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) . Fact: In its suit, ACLU only defended NAMBLA's free-speech rights - just as it defends the free-speech rights of everyone, no matter how much it may disagree with the content of the speech. The ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. It does not support the beliefs of NAMBLA. quote: why would i let their opinion on this issue influence the way i look at it? What influences your view of the matter is, of course, your business. To me, the ACLU statement is interesting because it suggests that concerns about the White House's actions are more than just conservative blogosphere chatter. <Eta link>

TheHeretic -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 1:35:25 PM)
No need to repeat yourself, Greedy. I saw it the first time you posted. I saw it when I quoted it. Obviously, we are seeing it from different perspectives, because I find the request troubling. Some people assume the Democrats would never use such information for anything but to do good. I'm not one of them.

TheHeretic -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 1:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Funny thing, Ken, even the ACLU has the intellectual honesty to call this a, "bad idea that could send a troublesome message." Seems the ACLU supposedly only told this to FNC. It's not on the ACLU site and appears in no other news articles. I've already established by a huge preponderance of the evidence that FNC lies so I strongly doubt that even if FNC has an ACLU statement it actually says what they claim. Got a link to the ACLU calling FOX a bunch of liars about this quote, Ken? Perhaps FOX were the only reporters who asked?

GreedyTop -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 1:43:34 PM)
I guess so, since I don't see how this automatically translates into "tattle-tale on your friends and neighbor". Honestly, TH.. your op struck me as a SKY IS FALLING kinda thing. I'm not saying the dems are perfect and above reproach, but still..

TheHeretic -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 2:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop I guess so, since I don't see how this automatically translates into "tattle-tale on your friends and neighbor". Who sends you the chain emails that you actually read, Greedy? Friends, maybe? Who do you engage in casual conversation with? Neighbors and co-workers, perhaps? If you are reporting the contents of those conversations, doesn't the "who" seems relevant?

GreedyTop -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 2:02:55 PM)
Actually, I dont read most chain mails. And I didnt see anything that said you'd have to identify WHO ya got it from, just what was said.

MmeGigs -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 2:11:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Who sends you the chain emails that you actually read, Greedy? Friends, maybe? Who do you engage in casual conversation with? Neighbors and co-workers, perhaps? If you are reporting the contents of those conversations, doesn't the "who" seems relevant? They aren't asking for "who", they're asking for "what".

Louve00 -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 2:29:48 PM)
I'll go along with your example of Bush wanting to start the war. There were people against the Iraq war before it started. People then were saying unless we found WMD we had no basis to go to war with them. Well, we (the Bush Administration, that is) finagled a bunch of ludicrious LIES/HALF LIES/ and INNUENDO to prove we had cause to go to war. In the end, Iraq had NO WMD. What they did have was a headgame going on between Iraq and Iran. Both leaders trying to psyche each other out about nuclear weapons. Hussein admitting he didn't have would foil his head game with Iran, so he wouldn't admit it. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/02/saddam-told-fbi-i-bluffed-on-wmd-because-i-feared-iranian-nukes/ In that link, which is a blog of an FBI agent who spent time with Hussein before his accusations, you will find this statement... “The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” We were not only involving ourselves in matters WE didn't understand, we turned that whole 'head game between Iraq and Iran into a thread to the US!!! Instead of further investigating, what Bush really wanted was to go to war with Iraq so he did. As far as voicing opposition to it, plenty were voicing opposition of going to war with Iraq. If you need a link for proof that people were against it before it started, here's one http://www.peaceonearth.net/100000RallyMarchAgainstWarInIraq.htm . If you read that link, half-way into the article you will find... "Here I'm not being spit on, people aren't throwing tomatoes at me and Joan Baez isn't singing," said protest veteran Dot Magargal, 77, from Media, Pa. "People just want to come out and say that not everyone wants to go to war. This is a lot of people, a lot of voters, and it has to count for something." So yes, people in during the Bush Administration were quite aware of people protesting the move, with marches going on to show their opposition on it. They weren't waiting for the Bush Administration to ask them to report anything. They were flat out telling them they didn't want it...and didn't care who knew about it...and no one got arrested for exercising one of their rights of the Consitution. And violence and intimidation and scare tactics were not being used to voice that opposition. And alas...in the end, no men in black suits came to pick up anyone. editted to add So Bush may not have been sending emails out, asking people to report rumors they weren't hearing because as far as Bush was concerned A) he either thought it wasn't a decision Americans should participate in, or B) His administration wasn't as into the power of the internet as this administration is. Either way, people said what they felt they needed to say, without fear of anyone saying it was being unconstitutional.

TheHeretic -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 3:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs They aren't asking for "who", they're asking for "what". Really, Gigs? Where are you finding the instructions to clean up the whole to/from chain on the email before forwarding it to them? They are asking for reports on "rumors" that are spreading which don't fit the official talking points about health care. Where one heard something seems like a logical thing to include in a report, don't you think?

Louve00 -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 3:33:34 PM)
ORIGINAL: Louve00 I'll go along with your example of Bush wanting to start the war. There were people against the Iraq war before it started. People then were saying unless we found WMD we had no basis to go to war with them. Well, we (the Bush Administration, that is) finagled a bunch of ludicrious LIES/HALF LIES/ and INNUENDO to prove we had cause to go to war. In the end, Iraq had NO WMD. What they did have was a headgame going on between Iraq and Iran. Both leaders trying to psyche each other out about nuclear weapons. Hussein admitting he didn't have would foil his head game with Iran, so he wouldn't admit it. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/02/saddam-told-fbi-i-bluffed-on-wmd-because-i-feared-iranian-nukes/ In that link, which is a blog of an FBI agent who spent time with Hussein before his execution, you will find this statement... “The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” We were not only involving ourselves in matters WE didn't understand, we turned that whole 'head game between Iraq and Iran into a thread to the US!!! Instead of further investigating, what Bush really wanted was to go to war with Iraq so he did. As far as voicing opposition to it, plenty were voicing opposition of going to war with Iraq. If you need a link for proof that people were against it before it started, here's one http://www.peaceonearth.net/100000RallyMarchAgainstWarInIraq.htm . If you read that link, half-way into the article you will find... "Here I'm not being spit on, people aren't throwing tomatoes at me and Joan Baez isn't singing," said protest veteran Dot Magargal, 77, from Media, Pa. "People just want to come out and say that not everyone wants to go to war. This is a lot of people, a lot of voters, and it has to count for something." So yes, people in during the Bush Administration were quite aware of people protesting the move, with marches going on to show their opposition on it. They weren't waiting for the Bush Administration to ask them to report anything. They were flat out telling them they didn't want it...and didn't care who knew about it...and no one got arrested for exercising one of their rights of the Consitution. And violence and intimidation and scare tactics were not being used to voice that opposition. And alas...in the end, no men in black suits came to pick up anyone. editted to correct all my typos and add So Bush may not have been sending emails out, asking people to report rumors they weren't hearing because as far as Bush was concerned A) he either thought it wasn't a decision Americans should participate in, or B) His administration wasn't as into the power of the internet as this administration is. Either way, people said what they felt they needed to say, without fear of anyone saying it was being unconstitutional.

GreedyTop -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/8/2009 3:34:04 PM)
stretch.

TreasureKY -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/9/2009 7:01:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: MmeGigs They aren't asking for "who", they're asking for "what". Really, Gigs? Where are you finding the instructions to clean up the whole to/from chain on the email before forwarding it to them? They are asking for reports on "rumors" that are spreading which don't fit the official talking points about health care. Where one heard something seems like a logical thing to include in a report, don't you think? Well... to be precise, their request was: 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 ... shrugs I don't see any other instructions. With an email, I would take that to mean I should forward the entire email... addresses, headers and all. For something on the web, I'd assume I was to send a link. Personally, I don't see why the White House can't keep up with the "rumors" without our help. While there may be an innumerable methods and venues for rumors to get out, I've not seen that many differing rumors. They also appear to have plenty of internet saavy staff... what with all the different blogs and sites they report on. I mean, sheesh... wouldn't take me but a google or two to find the most widespread and damaging rumors. I'm also curious as to why, if the White House is so serious about rumor-control, they don't take more advantage of the tools at their fingertips? They have an entire website devoted to Health Reform (healthreform_dot_gov). There's even a link to "Forums". But that link doesn't take you to a forum like this where any ol' Joe can ask questions or offer an opinion (or report a nasty rumor)... it's just a handful of articles about in-person town halls and forums that have already happened. Why is there no place for discussions? Why is there no FAQ about proposed or considered legislation? Why is there no link to the actual bill? Why isn't there a calendar of upcoming town halls where people can attend? Why isn't there even a form to report a rumor?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/9/2009 9:32:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I'm also curious as to why, if the White House is so serious about rumor-control, they don't take more advantage of the tools at their fingertips? They have an entire website devoted to Health Reform (healthreform_dot_gov). There's even a link to "Forums". But that link doesn't take you to a forum like this where any ol' Joe can ask questions or offer an opinion (or report a nasty rumor)... it's just a handful of articles about in-person town halls and forums that have already happened. Why is there no place for discussions? Why is there no FAQ about proposed or considered legislation? Why is there no link to the actual bill? Why isn't there a calendar of upcoming town halls where people can attend? Why isn't there even a form to report a rumor? Exactly. How about posting specific details of what actually will be in the plan, so people don't have to rely on rumors and e-mail chains for the most current information? Post the details of the proposal on the internet and let that do your talking for you. One of the biggest reasons the republican disinformation campaign is working so well is because they're the only ones on the televesion who sound like they know what they're talking about. It may be total bullshit, but they're able to state it in clear, declarative sentences, and that's the kind of delivery that people hear and remember. The only way the democrats are able to respond is with "no, that's not what we're going to do. We can't tell you what we are going to do because we haven't figured it out yet ourselves, but it's not going to be that. We're pretty sure." Once again, Obama and the democrats have nobody to blame but themselves for getting outmaneuvered by the republicans. It's one of the most fundamental principles of politics - if your message is muddled (or you have no message at all), and the other side's message is clear, the other side is going to carry the debate even if they're lying through their teeth. If you want to stop the rumors and kill the lies, get the facts out. If you've got no facts to get out, make some decisions and generate some damned facts. Or, if you're unable or unwilling to do that, just enjoy your four years at the head of the parade and start making plans for writing your memoirs.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling (8/9/2009 10:06:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda try reading the fucking article and confining your remarks to what it actually says instead of making up these bullshit fantasies and spreading these tinfoil hat rumors that you're just making up out of nowhere. I quoted directly from the White House site, Panda. They are asking that casual conversation be reported directly to the executive branch of government. Yes. Exactly. But that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming that the White House is "asking people to report their friends, neighbors, and co-workers for disagreeing with Obama." Which is total bullshit. How you get from "please pass these rumors on to us" to "please report everyone you hear disagreeing with president Obama" is ludicrous. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Double standards seem to be all over the place today. No double standard here. I call bullshit wherever I see it, no matter which side is spouting it. I criticize Obama as readily as I ever criticized Bush, but this one is just ridiculous.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875