Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If it seems fishy, report it

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 9:16:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nags brought it up in another topic, it didn't really belong there, fortunately didn't go anywhere with it, so what do you think of this?

"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.... (Censored here because email addresses are not allowed in the Debate Dot Org forums)."

http://www.whitehouse.gov...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 9:28:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'll say what I think when I hear from a few people of the alarmist perspective so I can hear their argument. Multiple possibilities exist that are consistent with the text therein.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 9:30:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Btw, if anyone has ever heard anything I've ever said on the topic of health care and had anything resembling the concept of "that's fishy" come to mind, I humbly request that you report it, in ANY of the multiple possibilities relevant I would love to be on their list.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 12:27:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, if it was the plan was simple to understand to begin with.....
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 10:23:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nags, where'd ya go.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:33:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sorry for not posting, I must've skipped over this thread.

I agree with what (R) Sen. John Cornyn said in his letter to Obama condeming the program:
http://abcnews.go.com...

I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests.

I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program -- and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.

Those above two paragraphs make the most sense.

What is the need for this program? What is the White House going to do with the names of people? What is going to happen to people who are reported as having said "fishy" things? Why just the healthcare care bill, why not everything? Is the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech getting a little too close to being violated?

These are all valid questions. I see no need for this program and I would like to hear from people who think the program is needed.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:38:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
O great. Now, The System doesn't want us contending their healthcare plans.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:42:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If the reasoning is merely that it isn't needed, I can't conclude from that that there is extreme malicious intent, so the probability of that is rather small in my mind.

When you are attempting to do something new politically, being informed of objections both allows you to correct them and to correct your program should something useful come of them.

However, this could have been done by asking objectors to email instead of those reading the objectors, if that were the ONLY intent.

This is wild speculation, but Rahm Emanuel is an adviser to Obama, and Rahm has the brains for this sort of thing-- They probably wonder if the mere presence of the program staed as is might encourage people to shut their traps out of caution.

I don't think they're stupid enough to want to ruin their image by actually making any more malicious use of the information, though they might want it around in case a future administration chooses to do so, and still have plausible deniability about it.

Or, it could just be a case of not thinking things through.

Or, the guy who wrote it could be someone who is Master of Disguise enough to get a job in the Obama Administration only to try and discredit it. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 2:54:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They need these rebuttals "reported" only for political advantage.

Either:
-They intend to rebut or undermine these rebuttals before they can be effective.
-They intend to censor.

While we all hope it is only the former, the latter has occurred before, particularly under the Lincoln Administration, and Obama might be trying to be Lincoln.

Even if it is just the former, this is an abuse of political power. The Dem party can tell the people to "report" this for political advantage, but The Government should not.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:04:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can only imagine what the Dems and liberals would say if George W did the same program except for the Iraq War. He would've gotten impeached and lynched.

Why would the White House need the emails for rebuttals? There are things called blogs out there. I'm pretty sure the White House knows they exist.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:34:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here is a YouTube clip in case anyone is interested:

Fox News Anchor (Megyn Kelly) Discusses "The List" with White House Deputy Press Secretary (Bill Burton)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:34:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I can't find a YouTube video of it, so you're only going to get the source and the quote, but...

http://www.imdb.com...

"In every city and province, lists of the disloyal have been compiled. Tomorrow they will learn the cost of their terrible folly... their treason."

Go watch the movie, because it's apparently not online.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 3:35:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ugh, a two-second difference, and anybody who looks back at this an hour from now is going to think that my posting of a reference to a list was inspired by you.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the white house could have handled the idea better, but I highly doubt there was any malicious intent. They should have provided a text box where someone can post what was said, specifically requiring them not to tell the name or e-mail address of the person saying it.

I would also like to note that Nags is probably correct. People would be jumping all over Ge. Bush in the same manner that they are with Obama if Bush had instituted a similar program.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 9:48:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
wjmelements said:
Even if it is just the former, this is an abuse of political power. The Dem party can tell the people to "report" this for political advantage, but The Government should not.

I disagree. It is a government policy, and the government has a perogative to refute claims against its policy. It isn't so much "political advantage," as it is making sure others understand what the policy is, and make sure that it is able to rebuke claims against it, otherwise they'll just end up having their policies undermined because they couldn't address an argument they didn't know about.

Censor? Definitely not. But both sides of the story should be presented in order for those that have yet to make up their mind can see, and all arguments should be presented for dissemination by both sides. Isn't that why we even use this site, called Debate.org?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 8:56:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
An update from your must trusted news source: Nags

Fox News Sr. White House Correspondent (Major Garrett) Asks White House: Why Are People Receiving Health Care Emails When They Never Signed Up (Video)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Here is Major Garrett reflecting on the "heated discussion" (Video):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Commentary from Hot Air:
http://hotair.com...

Even the ACLU is concerned!!!!!!!!!!!!!:
http://www.aclu.org...

That is it for now. Tune in next time for "News with Nags", the most trusted news source on DDO.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 9:30:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/12/2009 9:48:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
wjmelements said:
Even if it is just the former, this is an abuse of political power. The Dem party can tell the people to "report" this for political advantage, but The Government should not.

I disagree. It is a government policy, and the government has a perogative to refute claims against its policy.

Just to be clear, you'd be totally okay if Bush invested tax resources in disseminating conservative propaganda to the public?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 4:11:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 9:30:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just to be clear, you'd be totally okay if Bush invested tax resources in disseminating conservative propaganda to the public?

I'd be totally okay if Bush invested tax resources in clarifying government programs he wished to initiate. There is nothing wrong with clarifying what you want to do and how you'll do it, as long as you allow for a vocal opposition to continue to exist to provide the same for the other side. There is a difference between disseminating and providing information, and propagandizing and censoring information.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 9:02:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 4:11:19 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/13/2009 9:30:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Just to be clear, you'd be totally okay if Bush invested tax resources in disseminating conservative propaganda to the public?

I'd be totally okay if Bush invested tax resources in clarifying government programs he wished to initiate. There is nothing wrong with clarifying what you want to do and how you'll do it, as long as you allow for a vocal opposition to continue to exist to provide the same for the other side. There is a difference between disseminating and providing information, and propagandizing and censoring information.

The relevant issue is not whether the set "disseminating and providing information meant to convince" (redundant btw), differs from "propagandizing and censoring." I was not levelling accusations of censorship in that post, so the relevant issue is whether "providing information meant to convince" is different from "propagandizing--" which is not the case, they are synonyms with different connotations.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:00:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 2:51:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
If Obama were Bush, anyone who showed up at a town hall meeting to threaten violence would be in Gitmo.

Because there are so many American citizens in Gitmo right now..? Oh wait, there are none.

Perv- Your arguments are always so eloquent.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:09:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:00:46 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/14/2009 2:51:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
If Obama were Bush, anyone who showed up at a town hall meeting to threaten violence would be in Gitmo.

Because there are so many American citizens in Gitmo right now..? Oh wait, there are none.

Perv- Your arguments are always so eloquent.

Actually there are quite a few. A lot of mosques were shut down, and people from the U.S., Canada, and yes overseas were picked up, given no trial and held for years and tortured. No trial, no due process.

Groups like pacifist Quakers and environmentalist were pronounced terrorists by Bush and conservatives in Congress for protesting the war or the elimination of environmental protections. Surely, if those things are terrorism, threatening to kill elected representatives because Sara Palin told them Obama wants to kill their granny is terrorism?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:11:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:09:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 3:00:46 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/14/2009 2:51:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
If Obama were Bush, anyone who showed up at a town hall meeting to threaten violence would be in Gitmo.

Because there are so many American citizens in Gitmo right now..? Oh wait, there are none.

Perv- Your arguments are always so eloquent.

Actually there are quite a few. A lot of mosques were shut down, and people from the U.S., Canada, and yes overseas were picked up, given no trial and held for years and tortured. No trial, no due process.

Groups like pacifist Quakers and environmentalist were pronounced terrorists by Bush and conservatives in Congress for protesting the war or the elimination of environmental protections. Surely, if those things are terrorism, threatening to kill elected representatives because Sara Palin told them Obama wants to kill their granny is terrorism?

Sources.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:27:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:11:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Sources.

"In 2005, peaceful protests planned by AFSC in response to the second anniversary of the war in Iraq were identified in a secret Department of Defense database as "potential terrorist activities," according to internal documents received through the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. This database, which is most frequently referred to in the media as the TALON database, also identified a 79 year-old Quaker grandmother attending an anti-war meeting at a Quaker meeting house in Florida as "potential terrorist activity."" -- http://www.tompaine.com...

http://www.actionpa.org...

http://www.cbsnews.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:47:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:27:53 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 3:11:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Sources.

"In 2005, peaceful protests planned by AFSC in response to the second anniversary of the war in Iraq were identified in a secret Department of Defense database as "potential terrorist activities," according to internal documents received through the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. This database, which is most frequently referred to in the media as the TALON database, also identified a 79 year-old Quaker grandmother attending an anti-war meeting at a Quaker meeting house in Florida as "potential terrorist activity."" -- http://www.tompaine.com...

http://www.actionpa.org...

http://www.cbsnews.com...

I said there were no American citizens in Gitmo.

You said no blah blah blah. Quakers blah blah. They are not in gitmo though. So, this is irrelevant.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 5:33:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:27:53 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 3:11:54 PM, Nags wrote:
Sources.

"In 2005, peaceful protests planned by AFSC in response to the second anniversary of the war in Iraq were identified in a secret Department of Defense database as "potential terrorist activities," according to internal documents received through the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. This database, which is most frequently referred to in the media as the TALON database, also identified a 79 year-old Quaker grandmother attending an anti-war meeting at a Quaker meeting house in Florida as "potential terrorist activity."" -- http://www.tompaine.com...

http://www.actionpa.org...

http://www.cbsnews.com...

This fits rather well with your position on abortion. Both show you draw no distinction between potentials and actuals. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 10:41:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
UPDATE: White House Sued Over Free Speech

http://www.newsmax.com...

FULL ARTICLE:

The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.

The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE).

The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to ‘flag @ whitehouse.gov.'

Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."

The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for healthcare reform, and thereby refusing to ‘come clean' about its real agenda.

The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:

"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether (a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put "death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm, (c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics…..

"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda involves rationing healthcare…"

"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the ‘fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"

AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.

NOTE: AAPS is a non-partisan professional association of physicians dedicated since 1943 to protection of the patient-physician relationship. CURE, founded by Star Parker, serves poor and inner-city communities through church, individual, and market-based solutions to poverty.