White House Encroaching on First Amendment

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Wow!

What a disingenuous accusation. He's looking for areas which need to be clarified, not asking you to rat on your friends.

Sorry, but thats beneath Obama and his Chicago style politics

Mod Edit: Please don't alter other posters words when quoting them. Cheers -alien

[edit on 9-8-2009 by alien]

reply to post by mhc_70


If you quote someone you should use their actual words. Which makes your last post a bald faced lie for all to see.

Evidently now everyone of your posts has come under suspicion.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Even at his darkest moments, Bush never tried to get you to rat on your friends. This is a great example of what an idiot with a little bit of power can do. Turn the siren on as this could be a HUGE roadblock for anykind of free speech through electronic means.

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes, he did, actually. It was a "tips" program for if anyone in your neighborhood acted suspicious. You'd even get a cash award if it led to an arrest.

Expansion of government started with the Patriot Act. Ahhh, the irony...

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by mhc_70

 

If you quote someone you should not plagiarize.

Evidently now everyone of your posts has come under suspicion.

I think I made it pretty clear that I edited your words to advance my opinion.

Feel free to scrutinize and report me to Obama and to your hearts content.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Even at his darkest moments, Bush never tried to get you to rat on your friends. This is a great example of what an idiot with a little bit of power can do. Turn the siren on as this could be a HUGE roadblock for anykind of free speech through electronic means.

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes, he did, actually. It was a "tips" program for if anyone in your neighborhood acted suspicious. You'd even get a cash award if it led to an arrest.

Expansion of government started with the Patriot Act. Ahhh, the irony...

Apples to oranges.

The context of the "tips" program your trying to equate involved planning violence against other people and national security.

So far the only violence has come from Obamas own party.

I guess I can see the libruls using information compiled by the reports to mandate political re-education for dissenters.

They could argue this would not marginalize opposers, instead bring the them up to their level.

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by Roadblockx

Even at his darkest moments, Bush never tried to get you to rat on your friends. This is a great example of what an idiot with a little bit of power can do. Turn the siren on as this could be a HUGE roadblock for anykind of free speech through electronic means.

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yes, he did, actually. It was a "tips" program for if anyone in your neighborhood acted suspicious. You'd even get a cash award if it led to an arrest.

Expansion of government started with the Patriot Act. Ahhh, the irony...

Can you expand on this "tips" program? I honestly have never heard of it and in the spirit of having an open mind, it would be helpful to know about this program.

reply to post by mhc_70


Great point. I failed to make the connection the first time I read his post but will be even more eager to see what his response is on the "tips" program. At first glance, I hardly see how reporting people acting in a manner which could lead to violence is the same as reporting someone who says BHO health care is awful.

Does that mean I just got reported?

reply to post by Roadblockx


Geez I knew it was a republican before I even looked at the thread. To play devil's advocate the White House can practice free speach as well and if they are asking people to send in emails well then thats up to the end-user. Who knows what they're going to do with that information anyway, you really think their gonna set up some CC's for everyone apposed to the HC bill, I strongly doubt that. This just forwards the same notion that republicans will implement bill after bill to censor free speach and invade privacy while Bush is in office, then play the side of the hypocrit when it's the Dem's pulling the same moves. Jealousy anyone?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

Geez I knew it was a republican before I even looked at the thread. To play devil's advocate the White House can practice free speach as well and if they are asking people to send in emails well then thats up to the end-user. Who knows what they're going to do with that information anyway, you really think their gonna set up some CC's for everyone apposed to the HC bill, I strongly doubt that. This just forwards the same notion that republicans will implement bill after bill to censor free speach and invade privacy while Bush is in office, then play the side of the hypocrit when it's the Dem's pulling the same moves. Jealousy anyone?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by NoJoker13]

I think I found what so many long time posters have been complaining about. I read a couple of posts about why these long term ATS'ers were hating this site because instead of posters debating point for point about a topic, these posters were going after character attacks and idiotic assumptions while adding nothing to the thread. Case in point.

For shins and grins, I will respond.

1, I'm not a republican or dem. Trying to lump someone in a group only helps you further build a profile about the person instead of trying to figure out their views. This is a lazy way to get to know someone and you should be embarrassed.
2, I am fully open to you showing me how Bush encouraged the citizens to forward emails to the white house on people that were critizing his plans. Again, I'm open-minded enough to hear what examples you have on this. I never said he didn't but I am curious what examples you have.
3. I'm not sure if you are an IT professional or not but from your post, I am not sure you understand what a CC response is or how easy it is to scan emails by subject line or the body. The email address the white house published allows anyone to send an email to that address. When the email is sent, the following info is captured: A) headers of that email which contain the IP address of who sent it B) the email address of the sender and C) the subject line and message contained in the body. That information is dumped into a database which allows quick reference to see who is sending what and how often.

What will the database be used for? Who will use it? I don't know. But to think that those emails are going into a "SPAM" filter or otherwise is an uninformed statement. Remember, this is the same gov who brought you CONDOR. I do remember the NSA building the world's largest database for "cell phone" monitoring which was under Bush's watch.

Not sure saying that "he did it so we can do it too" is a very plausable approach. I thought this was supposed to be the party of HOPE, CHANGE and TRANSPARENCY.....

Remember, this is the same powerful, technology embracing administration that couldn't run its OWN IT system...

Where do I plug this in?

From CNN..

www.cnn.com...

On CNN, Durbin defended the White House's new effort to track and rebut rumors about the president's health care plan, following Republican criticism that the move was intended to intimidate opponents.

"What I can tell you is that the White House is not trying to collect names of any Americans. What they're trying to do is post on some of these Web sites a rebuttal to some bad information," he said, pointing to rumors that provisions in the proposal might be used to fund abortions, cover undocumented immigrants or raid Medicare funds. "There's so much bad information out there, you can understand the effort to at least let people hear both sides of the story."

Not sure how this applies to e-mails.

ATS should invite them here to discuss and debate health care reform, if they are truly interested in rebutting "bad information" on health care reform posted on websites.

They would likely decline the invite, ATS members would likely destroy their rebuttals with actual copy from their proposed bills.

I'd pay to see that happen though.

Originally posted by Lilitu
He doesn't need to ask. I have been doing this for a few months now. As a matter of fact I began compiling information for just this purpose before we elected Obama POTUS.

The right is going down never to return.

I do hope you aren't being serious..



~~~~~~~~~~~~~


On a different and completely unrelated note, perhaps if they listened at these town hall meetings they wouldn't need anyone to send in emails and websites to know what people are saying about the health care bill. If they listened instead of labeling everyone who opposes it they would know exactly why many of us are against this bill. I suppose that would make too much sense though, and Congress certainly doesn't like to do anything that makes sense. Much simpler to just ask us to rat out everyone who opposes it.

reply to post by Walkswithfish




I didn't even catch that on CNN. Good find. Well, since they said they wouldn't use it for anything malicious, I guess that closes up that whole concern.

Working with a relatively small county's gov agency a couple years back on improving their network environment, I discussed with one of the directors about an upcoming election. He showed me how each of his 125+ employees were registered (rep, dem or ind) and whether they requested time off to vote. Now, I remember thinking at first, HOLY SH*T! But after he explained that it was to make sure only those that were registered to vote rep or dem were allowed time off to vote in the primary election, I was relieved. (Not really) Shortly after the primary while working at the same small county's agency, I remember hearing about a supervisor that was "asked to continue their career elsewhere" after an opposing elected official's sign was found in her yard. Now, this is a "right to work state" which allows anyone to be fired for any or no reason. That little lesson tought me that even in the small, backwoods gov agency, there is always, always a LIST. It just depends on WHO reads that LIST.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply to post by Jenna


You make a very good point and to expand on it, if bho and his crew spent more time finding ways to listen to the citizens and hear our concerns and to find ways to resolve those concerns instead of encouraging you and I to report each other for not following along, this joker may actually be worth a d@mn. But instead of listening to the people and inspiring "change" (is anyone else sick of that word yet?), he invites us to monitor each other and quiet those looking for hope.

By the way, nice avatar. I never wanted to go shoot a bow and arrow so badly.....

reply to post by Roadblockx


1. I didn't say you were a Repub or Dem I said the senator opposed to the bill was.

2. Bush didn't have to, he implemented a little thing called the "patriot act".

3. By CC i mean concentration camps.

4. What presidential term was Condor put into motion?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by NoJoker13]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

1. I didn't say you were a Repub or Dem I said the senator opposed to the bill was.

2. Bush didn't have to, he implemented a little thing called the "patriot act".

3. By CC i mean concentration camps.

4. What presidential term was Condor put into motion?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by NoJoker13]

1. My apologies for misreading your opening line.
2. Patriot Act isn't the same as this. Patriot Act covered "violence/protective measures" (I know, I know... I am trying to keep it in the simplest form) while this bho witch hunt coveres "civilians disagreeing with the gov's health care plan"
3. Fair enough
4. I honestly have no idea and every time I search for "CONDOR", I get nothing even remotely close to a program. If you could, please provide what you know about it.



[edit on 10-8-2009 by Roadblockx]

reply to post by Roadblockx


No need to apologize I've made plenty of misreads here on ATS, but thanks. The patriot act could've been used more losely but ya thats another subject matter. I'll try to take a look into the Condor idea, hopefully I'll find something.

reply to post by NoJoker13


I appreciate it. I am not sure why my searches aren't providing anything productive but it may relate to me sitting inside a state gov agency network while searching

If you don't find anything, I will try when I get home where my internet filtering will be a little less.

This guy cites the Privacy Act of 1974 and is claiming the program is illegal. He made this video featuring an interview yesterday with Linda Douglas.




Full Interview: