Obama czar proposed government should 'infiltrate' social network sites, chat rooms, message board

President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough.

President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough.

Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough.

You're new here so I'll just assume that what this was, was a joke. Right?

Either that or you're making the OP's point.

President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough. Look we are out of the Iraq war isn't that good?

reply to post by beezzer

Their arguments are weak. Their positions phony. And they invalidate themselves.

And yet, they work at the White House and you do not.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


As has been proven repeatedly, intelligence is not a requirement for an occupant of the White House.

Money, influence, greed, a desire to lead (control), play more of a part than actually being smart.

Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough. Look we are out of the Iraq war isn't that good?

Brrraaaacccckkk! Polly want a cracker? You are a parrot for the MSM...

or just a son of one.

reply to post by beezzer

Money, influence, greed, a desire to lead (control), play more of a part than actually being smart.

Sounds like a cop out. Since they succeeded where you could never you have decided the game is rigged. I could show you all kinds of white house workers, politicians, CEO's and whatnot that got there on their own time.

To invalidate their life's work to something akin to cheating is insulting. They went to college, got their degrees, worked their way up and you call them stupid and greedy for doing so. Isn't that the American dream? But when someone succeeds in their goal and gets in the White House then suddenly its unfair. Suddenly they are shills incapable of holding an argument for no other reason than you said so.

Not to mention your biggest flaw.

You are criticizing people you do not know and will never meet for things you do not fully understand. Then, you call them stupid as if you KNOW how your intelligence matches up to those that you have no clue about. And that, to me, is amazing.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Nice rant, but fail all the same.

I call them stupid and greedy where you laud their actions like you know them as well.

If they were so smart and successful, then things would be better, no?

Yet people like yourself continue to make excuses for their failures.

Bush's fault?

A sure sign of a weak mind is finding excuses and not solutions.

Something you have illustrated quite well.

reply to post by beezzer

Nice rant, but fail all the same.

Nice way to invalidate everything i said.

I call them stupid and greedy where you laud their actions like you know them as well.

I did not laud their actions. I pointed out that they are doing what they want to do.

If they were so smart and successful, then things would be better, no?

I am sorry, but what do you mean? How can you "tell" things are worse or better than they would have been otherwise? Whats the line for better? Unless you take a look into an alternative universe then you can not, nor will you ever, know how things would have been different.

Yet people like yourself continue to make excuses for their failures.

First off, what excuses did i make? Remind me.

Second, I dont make excuse for others failures that is not my place. Imagine how insulted, say Ron Paul, would be if he found out people were making excuses for his failure to pass all but one of the pieces of legislation he sponsored. Good thing no one on this site does that...

Bush's fault?

I am sorry, but how is this relevant to anything i have said? Bush's fault for what?

A sure sign of a weak mind is finding excuses and not solutions.

What excuse? Show me one.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

They went to college, got their degrees, worked their way up and you call them stupid and greedy for doing so. Isn't that the American dream?

Just because somebody goes to college and gets a degree doesn't make them any better or smarter than anyone else. If that is your yard stick then you are a dreamer. Degrees get you hired, not make one "smart". Degrees prove you are a good worker bee, willing to work hard at whatever the task the company will train you for.

You do know what BS, MS, and PHD stand for don't you?

Bull Stink, More Stink, Pile it Higher and Deeper.

Originally posted by Violater1

China’s Google prevents the Chinese people to find out what is really happening out in the world. The North Korean media also censors what it wants it’s people to read and hear. And Cass wants to use their censorship as a paradigm for the “new internet.”
He wants to have the NWO, TPTB or Illuminati (call them what you want) spies infiltrate these site and attempt to discredit the contributors with ad hominem remarks or out right lies. Then they inject their nefarious propaganda by either making positive remarks to the contributors that may also object with the OP or by inserting some logical fallacy.
No apologies here but by studying the symbology in their avatars, they seem to stand out like a sore thumb.
We are asked if we want a free internet and guess what the guy is going to give us.

Uhbumabots attacking in 5..4..3….

This line of thinking is not restricted to Sunstein and Obama. State-sponsored media manipulation and agents provocateurs, who disrupt movements with false information have a long history. For example the Cointelpro of the FBI was active for decades. Thousands of conspirators and confidants kept their silence. Not one became a whistleblower. The media even ridiculed those activists who were wary and assumed, that the government might be using agent provocateurs to undermine their movements. So it is no wonder, that the media was no help in exposing this wicked program.

The program was successfully kept secret until 1971, when the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI burglarized an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, took several dossiers, and exposed the program by passing this information to news agencies. Many news organizations initially refused to publish the information. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.

en.wikipedia.org...

Such tactics have already been aimed at conspiracy theorists. For example the JFK-assassination researchers have faced (and still face) a blatant media bias. Authors who praise the Warren Commission get positive reviews, even if their work is shabby and full of errors, while critical researchers get marginalized or are ignored. In the past the CIA has even advised its media assets. It wanted the official story to become accepted history.

As for Sunstein's article. There was a great thread in 2010 about him and his strange fascistic essay. Meanwhile David Ray Griffin has even written a book which completely demolishes Sunstein's essay.

Infiltration of social media sites for propaganda purposes is not just a rumour or a thought-experiment. It is happening right now. The Megaphonies were just one especially conspicuous group. For example is the US military spending your tax money to develop better tools to lie to you.

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

www.guardian.co.uk...

For those interested in Sunstein and his essay. Here is a link to a radio show about this essay and David Ray Griffin's book.
www.kpfa.org...

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
To most people anything with a WND in in the link is not a real reliable source, nothing but a site to sell right wing fear mongering literature.

edit on 1/13/2012 by BubbaJoe because: (no reason given)

Really?
Really!
You want fear mongering ( typical logical fallacy )?
Then read Cass Sunstein's paper yourself.
papers.ssrn.com...
Here is a direct "fear mongering" quote from the socialist, Obama Czar himself!
" Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law."

edit on 13-1-2012 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)

Actually thought about this for a minute, and does the name Tim McVey ring a bell, I do believe he was a conspiracy theorist. I believe he was executed for his crimes. I also think there was a lot of info on the shooter of Gabriel Giffords being on this website, as well as the manifesto of the shooter in Norway, please provide some info rebutting the facts that conspiracy theorists can be violent.

Aren't 'conspiracy theorist' still not human like everybody else?
And who constitutes as one? There is no way of selecting who can and who cannot talk about them so yeah like the man in the article says it should have to be illegal for anyone,which coincidently would also make it a punishable offense.


Do you see this guy



He was a dutch politician.


Here he is again after he was killed by a member of greenpeace because he didnt think the man did enough to protect seals.


The man who murdered him was a greenpeace member for crying out loud, A 'treehugger' as some would call it. Numerous people get killed daily, Men ,woman and children because others do not agree with them and a million other ridiculous reasons but here you are. Afraid of people that discuss conspiracies.You must be afraid of life in general.


If anyone can provide you with evidence that a conspiracy theorist is not capable of violence then that person just identified the first character type found in the world that is incapable of it.

Your reasoning is utterly and totally retarded



Next to that ,conspiracies are going on in the world and always have and here you are supporting the idea of making it illegal to talk about them. Which would be a major step in cutting down the freedom of speech AND the constitution. But if that is how you really feel about things why dont you move to North korea? You would not be like you said 'so scared' anymore. No one there even dares to even think that what their government does is wrong and by the sounds of it you will love it there.

Okay, so based on the posts in this thread, I'm getting the sense that Oh-bomb-ya is a puppet president that nobody likes ?

Bush Jr - puppet
Clinton - puppet
Bush Sr - puppet
Reagan - puppet
Carter - puppet
Ford - puppet
Nixon - puppet
Johnson - puppet
Kennedy - nonpuppet, ended up dead
Eisenhower - puppet

... are we seeing a pattern here yet ?

Originally posted by Violater1

You want fear mongering ( typical logical fallacy )?
Then read Cass Sunstein's paper yourself.
papers.ssrn.com...
Here is a direct "fear mongering" quote from the socialist, Obama Czar himself!
" Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law."

That would be a factual statement - what's the problem with that?

Just off the top of my head, chemtrail conspiracy theorists threatening to shoot down aircraft (those would be passenger aircraft full of...gasp...passengers) fir hte bill exactly.

Are there others out there threatening violence in order to counter some perceived conspiracy or other?

For example if you start calling elected officials "traitors" because you disagree with their policies then are there those who take that a step further and want to kill them?

reply to post by CranialSponge



You forgot president 'Woodrow wilson' but at least he publicly apologized for giving the federal reserve the power they have today,it was of course to late to do anything about it but still.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Violater1

You want fear mongering ( typical logical fallacy )?
Then read Cass Sunstein's paper yourself.
papers.ssrn.com...
Here is a direct "fear mongering" quote from the socialist, Obama Czar himself!
" Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law."

That would be a factual statement - what's the problem with that?

Just off the top of my head, chemtrail conspiracy theorists threatening to shoot down aircraft (those would be passenger aircraft full of...gasp...passengers) fir hte bill exactly.

When did a 'conspiracy theorist' ever shoot down a plane according to you.

Are there others out there threatening violence in order to counter some perceived conspiracy or other?

For example if you start calling elected officials "traitors" because you disagree with their policies then are there those who take that a step further and want to kill them?

So what if someone says 'i think [insert gov. official] is a danger to this country.Do you want to see him punished for saying that? Would you like to see him arrested?

Do you think that by silencing him he would think or act any different?
Do you think his civil rights are violated if he is indeed not allowed to express that?



If your answer is no to all or even most of these questions then what do you suposse you are arguing for?

Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
President Obama is a very good president. He supports the gays, he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military and he wants to protect the internet. We can't blame our bad economy on Barack Obama. I think Obama is doing a good job, not the best but good enough. Look we are out of the Iraq war isn't that good?

(I accidentally starred your post,this was not my intention)

he agrees American citizens shouldn't be detained by our military
Only when he talks publicly.Not when he signs laws.
en.wikipedia.org...

Look we are out of the Iraq war isn't that good?

He is going into a war with iran ,is that good?


and he wants to protect the internet

From who and how?


I suspect you are exactly what this thread and its title is talking about.
Do you have anything a bit more substantial to add?

Originally posted by Rafe_

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Violater1

You want fear mongering ( typical logical fallacy )?
Then read Cass Sunstein's paper yourself.
papers.ssrn.com...
Here is a direct "fear mongering" quote from the socialist, Obama Czar himself!
" Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law."

That would be a factual statement - what's the problem with that?

Just off the top of my head, chemtrail conspiracy theorists threatening to shoot down aircraft (those would be passenger aircraft full of...gasp...passengers) fir hte bill exactly.

When did a 'conspiracy theorist' ever shoot down a plane according to you.

Do you often invent strawman arguments to flatter yourself that you are "winning"??

Where did I ever say they did so?

But plenty are thinking about it and happy to say so

Do you think that suggesting people should go buy stinger missiles and shoot down airliners is acceptable behaviour??

Are there others out there threatening violence in order to counter some perceived conspiracy or other?

For example if you start calling elected officials "traitors" because you disagree with their policies then are there those who take that a step further and want to kill them?

So what if someone says 'i think [insert gov. official] is a danger to this country.Do you want to see him punished for saying that? Would you like to see him arrested?

Not at all - it's the "I'm gonna shoot him" bit that I think is a bit of a worry - perhaps you missed the bit where I mentioned "threatening violence"?? I've highlighted it for you....

Do you think that by silencing him he would think or act any different?
Do you think his civil rights are violated if he is indeed not allowed to express that?

Do you actually bother to try to understand what it is others write when they disagree with you??

If your answer is no to all or even most of these questions then what do you suposse you are arguing for?

Something you don't seem to understand - that threatening actual violence is not acceptable - given your obviously low levels of reading comprehension you seem to think that is the same as expressing dissatisfaction....I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference - really, really, sorry!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Winning? is that what this is about to you?
I will play games with you at another time but not right now if that is ok with you.


So no one that you have heard saying that they would like to shoot down a plane has ever done so.

Exactly my point. You have nothing to show for since not one of them has actually shot down a plane. And the talk about chemtrails has been going on for a long time,nothing happened. That is why i asked you the question,your answer is no,so what is your point.

Not at all - it's the "I'm gonna shoot him" bit that I think is a bit of a worry - perhaps you missed the bit where I mentioned "threatening violence"?? I've highlighted it for you....

It seems that your way of thinking is a bit too limited on the matter. Outside of the most obvious things like death threads anyone that mentions and discusses anything like a conspiracy would be a considered criminal.
What are you going to argue for next, enviromentalists mouthing off? Or Vegitarians mouthing off,where do you draw the line?

You seem to be missing the big picture. If we allow them to put bounds on topics because some people might just make threats then we might as well remove freedom of speech completely in one go and altogether.

Do you actually bother to try to understand what it is others write when they disagree with you??

Yes i do, but do you mind answering the questions since i am merely very curious about your position on the topic at hand.

Something you don't seem to understand - that threatening actual violence is not acceptable - given your obviously low levels of reading comprehension you seem to think that is the same as expressing dissatisfaction....I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference - really, really, sorry!

And you should be, for ignoring the entire topic and points made there in so maybe you want to also answer this question without once again losing track of things.


At not one point have i seen you make a case specific to conspiracy theorists and the idea that they are any more dangerous then anyone else in the world that is mouthing off. Thus no reason for there to be a law forbidding discussion of conspiracies ,which is the topic that is being discussed ... just to help you remember.