RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:35:55 PM

FullCircle

Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by FullCircle -- 8/8/2009 12:45:52 PM >

_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to SilverMark)

Post #: 21

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:42:47 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to SilverMark)

Post #: 22

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:44:56 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 23

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:45:02 PM

GreedyTop

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Post #: 24

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:51:26 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

<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.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Post #: 25

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 12:54:32 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to dcnovice)

Post #: 26

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 1:10:02 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

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>

< Message edited by dcnovice -- 8/8/2009 1:11:46 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

Post #: 27

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 1:35:25 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Post #: 28

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 1:42:41 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 29

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 1:43:34 PM

GreedyTop

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

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..

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 30

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 2:00:42 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Post #: 31

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 2:02:55 PM

GreedyTop

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 32

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 2:11:31 PM

MmeGigs

Posts: 706
Joined: 1/26/2008
Status: offline

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".

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 33

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 2:29:48 PM

Louve00

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Louve00 -- 8/8/2009 3:21:15 PM >

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to GreedyTop)

Post #: 34

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 3:22:27 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to MmeGigs)

Post #: 35

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 3:33:34 PM

Louve00

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Louve00 -- 8/8/2009 3:34:57 PM >

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to Louve00)

Post #: 36

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/8/2009 3:34:04 PM

GreedyTop

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

stretch.

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 37

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/9/2009 7:01:31 AM

TreasureKY

Posts: 3032
Joined: 4/10/2007
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

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?

< Message edited by TreasureKY -- 8/9/2009 7:24:54 AM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 38

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/9/2009 9:32:19 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to TreasureKY)

Post #: 39

RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling - 8/9/2009 10:06:01 AM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 40

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

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: Flag at WhiteHouse dot Gov - Very Troubling

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

2.023