GOP Senator: White House Encroaching on First Amendment

Ever hear of two wrongs don't make a right? People voted for change remember blaze not more of the same like Bush. So, whats your point?

Hey blaze, how about they install a camera in your house? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right? It'll be for your own safety of course.

This is the beginning of a very slippery slope. Hell, we've been on a slippery slope since the Patriot Act (which I despise).

"Citizens should not be afraid of their government. Government should be afraid of their citizens." -V for Vendetta.

what's the slippery slope - that GOP members of Congress encourage and participate in lies about the President (his patriotism, his nationality, his healthcare plans to kill seniors, his legitimacy as president, etc), or the slippery slope that the White House wants to get informed about these rumors directly for citizens?

I agree with you about the Patriot Act, but I don't mind the White House asking citizens to volunteer information to combat the politics of outright lies. He is not spying on citizens, he is not shredding the constitution, he is light-years away from the Patriot Act.

I wouldn't be afraid of it not being hidden. I would be afraid men in black suits might show up at my door for exercising free speech.

Cliffdog, and your point is the Dems have never done this about a Republican Pres. Have you been living in a cave for how many years?

Excuse me, but why can't the White House staff just get on the web and look at places like NV, then, when they see misinformation, just post a detailed rebuttal? It's because they are not interested in correcting misinformation; they are interested in destroying their opponents at any cost. I really do not care to know who thinks I am an idiot, or a racist, or whatever bad thing they think of me. I am not any of those things.

I do care to have an honest, free-flowing debate on many subjects. Why isn't the White House interested in such things? Why are they vilifying those that disagree with their methods, their data, and their ideas? Why are they not arguing the facts, but are instead asking everyone to turn in anyone that disagrees with them? Think about it, and read my post at 1.65. The answer is there.

With all due respect, Jack..why would the White House...the highest office in the land...concern themselves with what your neighbor down the street is saying about healthcare in an email to his uncle? What is the precedent for this? It would be tantamount to the Bush administration requesting that all e mails written by 'Truthers' be forwarded to the White House. Is that really the job of the White House? Isn't this what we have commentators and bloggers for?

I see it as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, but that's just me. While it may not be stripping Americans of their freedom of speech...it sure makes them think twice about expressing themselves in an e mail. It's coerced, involuntary suppression.

I also find it odd that you don't have a problem with the White House requesting these e mails be forwarded. As you know, a persons name, email address and IP address can be obtained from a forwarded e mail.

Mr. Jack!

What this President is doing is a big no-no!

Respectfully,

Susan

Pat:

Because it was on the top of Matt Drudge's web page for two days and was having a material effect onh the discourse.

Because these e-mail chains get forwarded a million times, literally, and have a material effect on the discourse.

I see it as a clear violation of the 1st Amendment,

That's because you don't understand the First Amendment. You are free to spew pretty much any bull@!$%# you want. The White House is free to call bull@!$%# on your bull@!$%#. Why do you think your bull@!$%# should be immune from having bull@!$%# called on it?

that the White House should just let bull@!$%# fester because it's "Hitlerian" to fight lies with truth.

No it is hitlerian to ask neighbors to turn in friends and neighbors in the name of finding or defending the so called truth (which the WH has had trouble with anyway)!

Pat N

With all due respect, Jack..why would the White House...the highest office in the land...concern themselves with what your neighbor down the street is saying about health care in an email to his uncle?

You make it sound like he is asking for us to snoop into private emails, that has nothing to do with what he is asking.

Now if my neighbor is sending me an email that has false information in it, it would be the proper thing to send an email correcting him on it. In fact it seems such common sense one would wonder why we even need to be asked.

Decisions about something as important as health care should be made with as much correct information as possible. Unfortunately we have been inundated with so many urban legends and constructed lies from lobby firms we have to fight back if we don't want the truth lost to background noise.

If some one is personally spreading misinformation on internet forums is it not healthy for the community to combat lies with facts?

DD:

it is hitlerian to ask neighbors to turn in friends and neighbors

Except that's not what happened. See what I mean? Your bull@!$%# is bull@!$%#. I'm calling bull@!$%# on your bull@!$%#. That's not against the First Amendment, that IS the First Amendment.

Now. If you think what I just said is bull@!$%#, call bull@!$%#. It's easy.

jfxgillis - I wanted to vote for your comment incessantly. Thank you.

Jack,

Don't blow a gasket, but below is directly off the WH blog and they are asking for e-mails! Maybe you get e-mails from your enemy's only but all my e-mails come from friends and business associates. And for me to help out the WH I would have to turn in friends.............hmmmmmmm........So the only cow pucky is yours!

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 flag@whitehouse.gov.

E f O:

I wanted to vote for your comment incessantly.

No bull@!$%#?

:^{)>

DD:

but all my e-mails come from friends and business associates.

You mean you don't have anybody among your circle who sends you stupid-ass snopes-debunked e-mail forwards? No imaginary pop-top-can tabs getting collected for some imaginary kid with imaginary cancer? No Oliver North getting questioned by Al Gore about Osama bin Laden?

You're a lucky guy.

Personally, I'm expecting health care bull@!$%# from two friends, one of whom is in his eighties and the other of whom is a Vietnam Vet. Which means they're both on socialized medicine and will send me some idiotic screed against socialized medicine.

Because it was on the top of Matt Drudge's web page for two days and was having a material effect onh the discourse.

Does Matt Drudges webpage have more effect on American discourse than...say Daily Kos or HuffPo? Is he really that 'powerful'?

Because these e-mail chains get forwarded a million times, literally, and have a material effect on the discourse.

Do those chain e mails have any more effect on American discourse than...say 9-11 truther chain e mails? Are they really that powerful?

I don't think you give the American public enough credit to disseminate the information they're fed, Jack.

You are free to spew pretty much any bull@!$%# you want. The White House is free to call bull@!$%# on your bull@!$%#. Why do you think your bull@!$%# should be immune from having bull@!$%# called on it?

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen bull@!$%# used so many times in one paragraph. Congrats on the record.

Now...I don't disagree that I'm free to spew bull@!$%# and anyone who wants to is free to call me on that bull@!$%#. Including the white house. That being said, I'm also free to call someone else on their bull@!$%# including the white house. Dissent, or challenging bull@!$%# spewed by the government is what this country was founded on. Not towing the government line.

What I take issue with is the highest office in the land not having any good reason to collect what they consider bull@!$%# simply because it flies in the face of their bull@!$%#

You mean you don't have anybody among your circle who sends you stupid-ass snopes-debunked e-mail forwards?

That is not what I said, sure I get them and I am torn if I should forward them to the WH or not and thought unpatriotic, kinda like those who did not support the war fantasized that they were unpatriotic.

Personally, I'm expecting health care bull@!$%# from two friends, one of whom is in his eighties and the other of whom is a Vietnam Vet. Which means they're both on socialized medicine and will send me some idiotic screed against socialized medicine.

This will be your perfect chance to turn them into the WH for lying to the country!

Pat:

Does Matt Drudges webpage have more effect on American discourse than...say Daily Kos or HuffPo? Is he really that 'powerful'?

As a matter of fact, Yes, it's been well-documented. Mark Helperin famously declared that "Matt Drudge Rules Our World" a few years ago. The spread in power is shrinking, I'll grant that, but Drudge is still an extremely powerful player.

Do those chain e mails have any more effect on American discourse than...say 9-11 truther chain e mails? Are they really that powerful?

Wanna know how to check? Go to snopes.com and simply count. Righty viral e-mails are probably a hundred times more common and more widely distributed.

I don't think you give the American public enough credit to disseminate the information they're fed, Jack.

If they're fed a steady diet of bull@!$%#, they'll swallow it. Do you have any idea how many people still believe things like that Vincent Foster was murdered?

Dissent, or challenging bull@!$%# spewed by the government is what this country was founded on. Not towing the government line.

I completely agree. And since I've been in opposition for most of my adult life, I know where you're coming from.

Jack,

Would you believe me if I told you I've never been to snopes.com in my life? Most mainstream conservatives I know don't view it as a source of information either.

Maybe I'm just getting old. Longing for the 'good ol days'. Back when the whitehouse was just occupied by Mr. 'I-am-not-a-crook' and no one in any administration would even consider telling the American public to 'tattle' on their friends, family and co-workers for sending 'fishy' e mails. Have we gotten a definition of 'fishy' yet?

Pat:

Most mainstream conservatives I know don't view it as a source of information either.

Why do you think that is?

Look. Back in the day, this kind of right-wing crapola was distributed on mimeographs by some local John Bircher (occasionally in a Canto by Ezra Pound).

It's the mass and viral nature of the current medium of dissemination that's a really hard problem to solve.

Most mainstream conservatives I know don't view it as a source of information either.

Why do you think that is?

because they believe what they hear from people they trust (which for my grandmother meant anything in print), without trying to double-check it independently. The last administration ran on faith and belief, not fact and science.

Isn't there a disclaimer you can attach to your email that disallows forwarding it to others for whom it is not intended? I seem to remember something like that on my correspondence at my last corporate job...though I doubt it would be enforceable without direct damages.

I think we should all send them something at the aforementioned address, flag@whitehouse.gov. (I just sent them a bunch of quotes about freedom and government tyranny from our founders from an anonymous account I have). Good luck sorting it all out.

Isn't there a disclaimer you can attach to your email that disallows forwarding it to others for whom it is not intended? I seem to remember something like that on my correspondence at my last corporate job...though I doubt it would be enforceable without direct damages.

Interesting point. Here's my work one. I think I might start putting it on all of my personal e mails. Probably won't help. But what can it hurt?

This e-mail message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

I think we should all send them something at the aforementioned address, flag@whitehouse.gov.

This is a most outstanding idea! =)

wmolaw:

I was thinking Cheech and Miltelo.

So, you going to forward their e-mails, with all the identifying meta data in it to the Whitehouse?

No. I'd strip out the headers, but then I would forward it if it was a chain e-mail.

So tell me Jack, how many are they "keeping track" of, and how are they keeping track of them?

I dunno, but I bet they already have a copy of the infowars.com crap Waynester just linked to. But just in case they don't, in fact, gimmee a couple minutes, I got something to do.

There. Done.

Wmolaw, Waynster, Pat,

I just sent this under the subject line "something fishy" Tom Price committee member!

....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD_YOlUBoIk

Matter of fact it stinks to high heaven!

Thank You,

D

wmolaw:

It's amazing what little tidbits slide out when you don't expect them to, eh? Clearly, that statement shows that the Whitehouse is ALREADY tracking such e-mails, such information "below the surface." Wanna bet NONE OF US want to really know how they are doing it?

Just like they've kept track of birther bull@!$%# that makes the rounds on e-mail: interested parties forward it to them. Do you really expect them not to keep track of this stuff and then to be blindsided by it? Again, I think you're being naive.

why would the White House...the highest office in the land...concern themselves with what your neighbor down the street is saying about healthcare in an email to his uncle?

This is how information spreads. People trust those close to them, so when one sends a lousy e-mail full of false statements, they tend to believe them. What the White House is doing is collecting the false statements in order to "debunk" them and help support the healthcare bills in congress.

They are not trying to listen in on everyone's conversations and then imprison those who are opponents of healthcare reform. And for those who are saying well what if they kept files on who was saying things, that is a fallacy. Just because it is a possibility doesn't mean it is truthfully happening. It would be the end of Obama's legitimacy if he collected records on those in opposition and to think that he would is ridiculous at best.

What the White House is doing is collecting the false statements in order to "debunk" them and help support the healthcare bills in congress.

Oh. Ok. So since I've seen e mails that claim this bill is 'deficit neutral' or that 'taxes won't go up' because of it or that it won't affect medicare...I'm supposed to send it to the white house, right? Afterall, that is false information about the bill. Even the CBO says so.

Gee. I wonder if the white house will be 'debunking' the false information being spread by supporters of the bill as well.

"Gee. I wonder if the white house will be 'debunking' the false information being spread by supporters of the bill as well." -- Pat N

Great point, Pat. And...don't hold your breath.

since obama is the chief of disinformation and the king of liars why in the world would anyone trust what comes out of his mouth..if his bills are so great why is he so worried about it not having any support...?

He doesn't like competition just ask those he ran against in his early career.

if his bills are so great why is he so worried about it not having any support...?

You mean like the majority of Americans that support him?

ou mean like the majority of Americans that support him?

Not on health care they don't.

More Disapprove Than Approve of Obama on Healthcare

Your statement is lacking creditability and substance, it should have said...old, and young, black poorly educated is the Obama way. They have nothing to blame except themselves, like Obama!

Funny they are concerned about these emails but the one's to people about winning lotteries in some other country that you can claim by sending money doesn't bother them. The Dems and Reps. probably use that for their political coffers come election time.

You may be correct, but some argue that it would make people more hesitant to send emails that outline why they disagree with the proposed healthcare to their friends or coworkers. It's more of an indirect attack.

I see it as yet another infringement on privacy by the government. They have no business asking for private emails, just like they have no business intercepting private emails without probable cause. Even if "the emails are distroted with lies," people have the right to write those "lies," to read those "lies," and to believe those "lies" if they choose to do so.

The government gives enough speeches presenting their side of the healthcare issue, so both positions must be open to the public, even if one is "wrong."

they have no business intercepting private emails without probable cause. Even if "the emails are distroted with lies," people have the right to write those "lies," to read those "lies," and to believe those "lies" if they choose to do so.

Absolutely agree. Except that is simply not what is happening here.

E-mails aren't being intercepted, they are being voluntarily forwarded. This will not change or infringe upon the rights of anyone.

I think, respectfully, there is no plausible danger of any sort of reprisal by the current administration.

Fisticuffs:

but some argue that it would make people more hesitant to send emails

Fewer dumbass e-mails getting forwarded a zillion times? The only bad thing about that is that those poor folk at snopes.com would be out of a job.

Thanks for your reply, LN.

Absolutely agree. Except that is simply not what is happening here.

Right, I had said that they have no business asking for private emails.

Glad we agree on the point that they shouldn't directly intercept emails :)

E-mails aren't being intercepted, they are being voluntarily forwarded. This will not change or infringe upon the rights of anyone.

Not directly, no, but as I said before, some people may be more hesitant to send emails with their views on healthcare. Just my humble opinion...

jfxgillis,

Fewer dumbass e-mails getting forwarded a zillion times? The only bad thing about that is that those poor folk at snopes.com would be out of a job.

Regardless how you feel about people whos opinions on this differ than yours, you should respect their right to think and feel that way. It goes with the old quote: "I may not agree with what you said, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Fisticuffs:

Regardless how you feel about people whos opinions on this differ than yours,

It's not about opinions. It's about facts and falsehoods. You have right to your opinion. You have a right to express it. I'll even go so far as to say you have a right to lie about the factual support you claim in support of your opinion, especially in a political context.

What you do not have right to do is to lie in support of your political opinion, then bar those who would combat your lies with truth from exposing your lies. Obama not only has a right to do what he's doing, he has a civic and Constitutional duty to do so.

So if I send out an email from President Obama's address and server with false information on it will they arrest him? I wonder how many hackers could use some corporation's email address to do this and cause them great problems with the Whitehouse? Just a thought.

What you do not have right to do is to lie in support of your political opinion, then bar those who would combat your lies with truth from exposing your lies.

Where is the cut off point, Jack? There are multiple threads on NV right now that are chastising Sarah Palin for exposing the lies of those who oppose her. They are saying she shoud just "let it rest" and not "draw more attention" to herself.

Obama not only has a right to do what he's doing, he has a civic and Constitutional duty to do so.

Constitutional duty? Really? Where? I've read the Constitution. It's only 4,000 words long. I can't find anything in there that says the POTUS has the duty to do this.

wmolaw:

Do you really feel comfortable sending an e-mail which may have negative information about the president to the president? All of the "Cc.'s," "bcc's," IP Addresses and other meta data? Do you really feel comfortable doing that?

No, but I'll happily copy and paste the relevant rumors from the e-mail into a new e-mail and send it to them. It's relevant to the debate.

intercepting private emails

If you are forwarding an e-mail full of information about the healthcare bill that is not private. You are mearly sharing publicly published information to one another in (barely) letter format.

"They are completely within their right to ask people to send in the lies and distortions that are being regurgitated by their opponents." -- Ledif Nieht

Now how in the world would everyday citizens such as yourself know what is fact or fiction if you haven't read the entire 1011 pages?

I guess you just take the word of Obama & Co because they'll give you the unvarnished truth, both good and bad? Puh---leaseee!!! Surely you are not that gullible!

"Hope and Change!" {gag}

Now how in the world would everyday citizens such as yourself know what is fact or fiction if you haven't read the entire 1011 pages?

How can one know anything about anything without knowing the entirety of the subject in question? Certain things are self evident fabrications.

This has nothing to do with stifling dissent, perhaps you should read the article.

I did and it has everything to do with stifling dissent. If you say something about their plans that their followers think the WH disagrees with they get their emails forwarded to the WH? Sounds pretty E. German Stassi to me.

No, it has nothing to do with stifling dissent. Stifling means to conceal or hide, and they aren't doing that by any objective standard.

They are obviously tryin to stifle opposing views by threatening to "turn them in" to the President who also happens to be the chief law enforcement officer and has many resources upon which to call if he so chooses. He can threaten to ruin someone with lies and innuendo, he can have the IRS audit them, he can have them investigated (remember Clinton's "bimbo squad"?)

Is it your assertion that the administration will retaliate against those who say things they don't like?

It's certainly possible and this would be a first step. Have you forgotten where Obama and Emanuel are from?

Waynester:

Have you forgotten where Obama and Emanuel are from?

Kenya and Israel?

It's certainly possible and this would be a first step.

Nearly anything is possible, but that isn't a statement of likelihood.

Have you forgotten where Obama and Emanuel are from?

Kenya and Israel?

Funny, Jack.

I wonder how much caterwauling would have ensued immediately had Bush done such a thing. It would have been deafening, to be sure.

Waynester:

I wonder how much caterwauling would have ensued immediately had Bush done such a thing. It would have been deafening, to be sure.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but he did. It was called the TIPS program and few Republicans had a problem with it but the "liberal" media and Democrats screaming about it got it revoked. It asked for people like postal workers and truck drivers to report anyone "suspicious" that looked like they might be a terrorist to a govt tip line and then the govt (i.e. law enforcement) would follow up. You really want to argue about dirty hands on this?

Perhaps you've forgotten, but he did. It was called the TIPS program

And it was about combatting terrorism (remember terrorism? September 11?), not the politcal opponents of the Bush White House or it's policies. And before that we had Clinton's Eschelon that no one but hard core civil liberties folks had a problem with.

Wayne:

I wonder how much caterwauling would have ensued immediately had Bush done such a thing. It would have been deafening, to be sure.

Do you want to discuss it seriously or do you just want to vent?

I can go either way.

Waynester:

The point is this. The White House is using this information to argue with people. The Bush White House used the TIPS information to detain and question people. Can you explain to me how you can compare this to McCarthy soliciting tips to detain and question supposed Communists before Congress and yet ignore a Republican-sponsored program that asked for tips to detain and question potential terrorists before law enforcement? You're being hypocritical because you don't like Obama and want to compare him to McCarthy, to cut to the chase. Republicans have solicited and used information for far more nefarious purposes than telling the public Obama isn't going to kill grandma because the govt's decided she's not worth the money anymore.

The point is this. The White House is using this information to argue with people.

And you know this because? How do you know it doesn't intend to use it to intimidate people. Do you really think obama and Emanuel are just two warm and fuzzies and would never seek to intimidate those who are seen to be undermining their agenda? Just how naive are you , anyway?

he public Obama isn't going to kill grandma because the govt's decided she's not worth the money anymore.

He's already said that perhaps an older woman should just get a pain pill instead of a pacemaker. I mean, they already do it in the UK. If you think there won't be formulas set up by a board that will determine who gets what treatment depending on their age, among other factors, you really are naive.

I can go either way.

I always suspected that about you, Jack.

Waynester:

And you know this because? How do you know it doesn't intend to use it to intimidate people. Do you really think obama and Emanuel are just two warm and fuzzies and would never seek to intimidate those who are seen to be undermining their agenda? Just how naive are you , anyway?

You call me up when they start using law enforcement as a method of policy making. Kind of the way the terror alerts ratcheted up around election times when Bush was in the White House, ya know? Until then, everything they're doing is legal. If you don't like it, write your Congressman and pray he doesn't forward it to the White House. ;-)

He's already said that perhaps an older woman should just get a pain pill instead of a pacemaker. I mean, they alreadydo it in the UK. If you think there won't be formulas set up by a board that will determine who gets what treatment depending on their age, among other factors, you really are naive.

Private companies have them and they're called actuarial tables. It just turns out that if grandma has the money she's worth saving in the current climate. Can you make a moral argument where that is acceptable as opposed to rationing out healthcare (which economics defines as a scarce resource) based on the outcome? The outcome for current insurance providers is making a profit. Pardon me if I don't think that's the altruistic method that Jesus had in mind when he healed people for free.

Ledif, regarding post 6.5 I think there may be a politician from Arizona who would tell you they already have.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292815/posts

Senator Kyl expresses his skepticism of the effectiveness of stimulus spending. No big deal, you say? Well, the governor of Arizona, a RINO, has received letters from cabinet members threatening to pull money for funding various projects in her state if Kyl doesn't shut up.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276969

Congressman Issa claimed that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been resorting to a Chicago-style "playbook" that acts as a "scare tactic" against legislators and governors who question the approaches of the Obama White House. "While this type of scare tactic may work In Chicago, it will not work to intimidate me or other Members of the United States Congress," Issa stated. "I and others have dared to bring these facts to the attention of President Obama, the Congress and the American people," Issa wrote. "You've unfortunately reacted by once again resorting to the playbook of the Chicago political machine."

Do you really want this kind of administration being forwarded emails of any kind?

I totally agree with waynster that the WH is using this as a tactic to intimidate americans against speaking out AGAINST his policies....well it's not working , report away...I would love for obama to be impeached and toss out his useless policies. I will vote for the opposition over you any day..read it and weep obama...

which economics defines as a scarce resource

There is no scarcity quite like that engendered by government price controls. We have seen this time and time again and yet there are still those who just refuse to admit it. The pacemaker was approved for the 100 year old by her Doctor in consultation with her insurance company presumably, not a government bureaucrat.(that would never happen under this plan) Obama implied she should have just gotten a pain pill. I'm still not sure how that would have helped an arrhythmia...

You call me up when they start using law enforcement as a method of policy making.

How about the IRS? Is that ok? Or private investigators digging up dirt and then having it planted in the media. (no shortage of willing accomplices there is there?

Is that ok, too? Is it just the actual use of law enforcement you have a problem with?

Do you want to discuss it seriously or do you just want to vent?

Hey, I saw an opportunity to use the word "caterwaul" and took it. What can I say?

Waynester:

Hey, I saw an opportunity to use the word "caterwaul"

I hear ya man. I did some caterwauling, actually.

wmolaw:

Dare I say you generally, caterwaul!

Bull@!$%#!

:^{)>

wmolaw:

Good, very good points. Amazing, eh how they protect their own, even when their own may be inimical to this Country.

How could they be good points? He posted a quote from Darrell Issa saying that he won't be "intimidated" into not speaking truth to power to the President. What are they threatening him with, if anything? His melodramatic Chicago comment implies they're fitting him for a pair of concrete shoes.

A bit like the response that I remember the parents of Jeffrey Dahmer had when informed of their child's "doings."

You're comparing us to a child molester and murderer and we're the ones that have the problem? LOL

Waynester:

How about the IRS? Is that ok? Or private investigators digging up dirt and then having it planted in the media. (no shortage of willing accomplices there is there?

IRS is law enforcement. As for PIs digging up dirt, here's a novel idea: politicians should behave better so there's no dirt to find.

politicians should behave better so there's no dirt to find.

I'm not talking about politicians I'm talking about private citizens who happen to disagree with the Obama agenda and are working against it.

Do you have any substantiation of that whatsoever? And what does the press care if somebody with skeletons in their closet makes the argument? It's the argument to be debated, not the person making it.

And what does the press care if somebody with skeletons in their closet makes the argument?

Wow, you really are naive. Since the press overwhelmingly supports Obamacare, the press will do whatever the administration wants, especially if it is sensationalistic. Do you not remember the efforts to ruin the women who spoke out against Clinton? I'm sure I can google up some links if you're having trouble remembering...You may also want to review "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky.

Waynester:

When it happens, come get me.

Waynster,

If scott is naive then you are paranoid at the very least.

You call it paranoia, I call it vigilance. You know, the thing Jefferson said was the price of freedom?

Waynester:

For it to be vigilance, somebody has to be out to get you. No one is out to get you. Therefore, you are paranoid. Or some can just stop calling me naive and neither of us has to be called something unpleasant or uncomfortable.

For it to be vigilance, somebody has to be out to get you.

Horse hockey. Vigilance is simply watchfulness, watchfulness does not require an explicit threat. I don't trust big government liberals like Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Frank with my liberty or property. Not one little bit.

And you know this because? How do you know it doesn't intend to use it to intimidate people. Do you really think obama and Emanuel are just two warm and fuzzies and would never seek to intimidate those who are seen to be undermining their agenda?

Waynester this is a fallacy. Just because you can't prove that they are collecting information to intimidate people, doesn't mean that they are. If you can prove that they are using the information to actually stifle people's freedom of speech or intimidate them, then you may use this arguement.

"If you can prove that they are using the information to actually stifle people's freedom of speech or intimidate them, then you may use this arguement." BrianAgness

Then what is your argument against *Bush's wiretapping law? Any proof that ordinary Americans were wiretapped? Here's a quote from an article which appeared on left-leaning "Huffington Post":

"President Bush highlighted the case of 9/11 hijackers Khalid Al-Midhar and Salem Al-Hazmi to make the case for his so-called "terrorist surveillance program," which is actually a domestic wiretapping program which MAY have been used against ordinary Americans." (source: Bush's Wiretapping Distortion)

*Bush signs wiretapping law (date: August 7, 2007)

"The House approved legislation Friday that would temporarily give the government broader power to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order, according to Reuters. The passage came one day after the Senate approved the same measure."

Which party held majorities in both the House and Senate in August, 2007 and passed this legislation approving of wiretapping? Keep in mind, the earlier Huffington Post article was written in 2006 in which concerns for wiretapping of ordinary Americans was expressed, although not proven. If wiretapping were a concern for Democrats, why then did they pass wiretapping legislation a year later?

Don't lay the blame squarely on Republicans when it clearly required Democratic approval in Congress as well in order to pass.

If you can prove that they are using the information to actually stifle people's freedom of speech or intimidate them, then you may use this arguement.

I don't have to prove anything. It's called logic. It's a logical and reasonable assumption that pols from Chicago will use intimidation as a political tactic. That's what this is: "If you send or forward an email from an organization or blog/blogger that opposes the health care reform bill, your information will be collected by the White House". That's a naked attempt to intimidate those who oppose his agenda. Period.

Again, nothing to do with the First Amendment. Please read the article.

Ledif,

I don't know if you are right or wrong about the First Amendment issue, but for me, it doesn't matter!

What this President is doing is wrong on so many other levels, that I have to say, who cares if it's a question regarding the First Amendment?

This reeks of a time not so long ago when people were asked to turn on their friend or neighbor!

This reeks of a time not so long ago when people were asked to turn on their friend or neighbor!

That is an incredibly disingenuous statement. They aren't asking you to "report" individuals that you think might be "reds". They are asking you to forward them materials that you have seen or received that are distorting the truth.

If you cannot tell the difference, then there is nothing more that can be said.

I don't know if you are right or wrong about the First Amendment issue, but for me, it doesn't matter!

And that, ladies and gentleman, is what we're dealing with. "I don't know, but my gut tells me...." Facts don't matter. Truth doesn't matter. All that matters are some empty slogans designed to do nothing but anger and misinform people. I'd be very embarrassed to make such a comment.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is what we're dealing with. "I don't know, but my gut tells me...." Facts don't matter. Truth doesn't matter. All that matters are some empty slogans designed to do nothing but anger and misinform people. I'd be very embarrassed to make such a comment.

Once upon a time in a counry known as the U.S.A, a Senator from Wisconsin, name of McCarthy asked for a list of "communists" from people. People sent in those lists, and eventually it turned into guilt by association, peoples careers were ruined, blacklisted etc. All it started with was asking people to send in notes about their neighbors who might be sorta communist, eventually McCarthy accused the Army of being infiltrated by communists, at which point Eisenhower had to step in to stop the rot.

As a Obama follower, I realize that the President can do no wrong, he can send drones into Pakistan with no war declared, kill innocent civilians, rather than torture them, but because he is who he is its ok. Asking the public to send in emails from people who have different opinions that those espoused by the President, smacks of McCarthyism, it was wrong when Republicans did it, its wrong when Obama does it.

I am sure, however, given your handle, that no matter who says what the President is correct, even the people killed in Pakistan with missles know he is correct in everything he says and does.

Lampell:

Let's not discuss civilian casualties. The Republicans most recently have tens of thousands on their hands.

Again, I ask you, why are people forwarding these e-mails to be afraid of the govt if they are telling what they think is the truth? The govt wants to argue with them, it doesn't want to haul them into Congressional hearings. We have to keep events in proportion here.

Lampell:

Let's not discuss civilian casualties. The Republicans most recently have tens of thousands on their hands.

I wasnt aware that Obama was a Republican, remember hope and CHANGE, that justifies murder? I dont think we need to help the administration send in emails that could false, misleading etc. If Americans can be swayed by those emails, so be it. Maybe we can start by eliminating reality TV shows so the mentality of Americans can be raised somewhat. The administration has their own political action committees who send out tens of thousands of emails a day, that should be enough. If they cant persuade the American public with that again, so be it.

Lampell:

I'll say the same to you that I've said to people who tell me bombing Hiroshima was wrong: supporting the enemy through industry marks you as a military target. Baitullah Mehsud's wife deserved what she got. I'm sorry it was her and not him, but she's married to a mass murderer in a country that won't allow us to use ground troops. As Zell Miller so aptly said, what are we supposed to defend this country with, spitballs and rubber bands? I've said the same about Pakistan under Bush. It's just a fact of war.

As for your claim the e-mails should be left alone, why doesn't the government have the right of free speech to contradict totally false claims about its legislation? It's called truth in advertising.

As for your claim the e-mails should be left alone, why doesn't the government have the right of free speech to contradict totally false claims about its legislation? It's called truth in advertising.

The government has the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, and therefore I would hope that they have enough people to supply them with emails of supposedly false information. Of course we know the government would never lie. As far as drones killing civilians, more than the population of Gitmo, hope one of them is not your relatives, since you are cool with killing civilians.

Lampell:

I would be really disturbed if the White House were attempting to use federal law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies to push forward domestic policy or politics of any kind. They are not allowed to use those agencies to spy on their political opponents and they should not. They are asking for information the authors have made public to be sent to them by those that receive it in their e-mail.

As for the civilians... my dad has built jet engines (many military) for 31 years at General Electric in Evendale, Ohio. The factory was a target (and legitimately so) of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal and is likely still a target of whatever is left of the Russian arsenal still pointing at us. Because my dad works in national defense and we live near him, we will all die in an attack against the General Electric plant. I have lived under the specter of that threat for all 26 years of my life. As we were and are a target, so are the people that cluster to Baitullah Mehsud, Osama Bin Laden and all others that perpetrate violence to achieve political aims or, if you'd like, are at war with the United States of America.

Even so, the plant and this area because of its national defense industry is likely high on the target lists of Al Qaeda and other terrorists after Washington DC, New York and Los Angeles. We also live under the threat that we could be sickened by a biological or chemical attack on the General Electric plant or, God forbid, they smuggle a briefcase nuclear weapon in that went missing after the Soviet Union broke up and Soviet soldiers conducted a weapons garage sale.

Now, bearing in mind that I, and others, live under this threat do you propose that we stop trying to strike at people who are trying to kill us because we might kill people that have chosen to associate with them? Not kicking an enemy while he is down is an excellent way to allow him the opportunity to kill you. I refuse to endorse any cease in the attempts to kill the people that want to kill us. They would not extend us the same courtesy and if you think they would you are sadly mistaken. I could be a civilian war casualty tomorrow while driving my dad to work. The absence of tangible signs of danger is not the absence of danger. Like I said, it's terrible that it was her instead of him but we should not and will not stop until the next time it is him that the Hellfire missile kills. I'm okay with that. If you think about the situation seriously and realize you're an actual target, you probably will be okay with it too.

Can we get real for a second?

First of all, nothing you send or post on the Internet is private. Even an email is something you are setting free to roam about the universe unchecked. As such, smart people don't put personal information in emails that they prefer to keep private.

Web sites can be hit by anyone. Your computer doesn't know if you're the President or a teabagging birther propagandist. If it's on a web site, the administration can read it. If it's one of those annoying FALSE email rumors, it can be spread, by the millions, in a matter of days. And of course, it can be read by anyone in the Obama administration.

What's the difference here? Do you think if people DON'T voluntarily submit URLs and copies of mass emails that the administration would NEVER know what people are thinking (or imagining)?

The guy who was interested in WHO thought WHAT is gone. THIS guy is only interested in the WHAT.

Health care reform is a HUGE issue to everyone - no matter what your views. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to know the truth - which is hard to discern in a sea of propaganda. The administration wants to identify the most dangerous misconceptions so that people can make decisions based on actual facts. Problem?

If you think, for one second, that Obama would even THINK about picking out private citizens, ala McCarthy, well I can't help you. He's not that guy. Which is great. That you almost want him to be that guy? Not so great.

I would be really disturbed if the White House were attempting to use federal law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies to push forward domestic policy or politics of any kind

My daughter worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, so be prepared to be very disturbed. Nixon used his office to prepare a hitlist, using the IRS for his agenda.

Bush has been accused of torturing people, who are suspected terrorists, but that is not good, torturing people. Even the present administration doesnt know what to do with them. But if you are ok with a democrat killing civilians in a country we are not at war with, guess thats ok, somehow I dont buy it. For me I dont care which twit is in office, but it amuses me that Bush was a torturer, but Obama is merely "taking out" terrorists. Of course we could expand our drone program and shoot missiles into any country where we suspect there is a terrorist, who cares how many civilians get killed, its for the cause. But of course that would be legal and ok, and torturing people is not legal and not ok.:)

Well Lampell, I am scared! Costa Rica is looking better every day!

Ellen for Obama, have you ever researched the people of Jonestown. Their man could do no wrong either. Even taking them to their death.

Lampell:

My daughter worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, so be prepared to be very disturbed. Nixon used his office to prepare a hitlist, using the IRS for his agenda.

Your daughter is one of the early ones at DIA... maybe even an original? I do think that's disturbing about Nixon but, based on what was proven he did in trying to steal from DNC headquarters at the Watergate, I expected behavior from someone like him. It's almost like he was a paranoid schizophrenic.

Bush has been accused of torturing people, who are suspected terrorists, but that is not good, torturing people.

We agree, torturing people is no good. It is, however, a great way to get the fastest lie that looks like intel to superiors. I was ashamed when a Turkish friend told me that the Turkish govt sometimes tortures dissidents and I told them that I could never imagine America doing that to its own citizens and my friend broached the subject of Gitmo. It saddens me that we ever tortured anyone but, even worse, my friend is a pro-Western Muslim and is still very angry and resentful about our behavior at Gitmo.

Even the present administration doesnt know what to do with them.

The answer to the question "What do you do with people you've kept locked up without access to due process for eight years many of whom you've tortured?" is never an easy one.

But if you are ok with a democrat killing civilians in a country we are not at war with, guess thats ok, somehow I dont buy it. For me I dont care which twit is in office, but it amuses me that Bush was a torturer, but Obama is merely "taking out" terrorists.

Killing someone that is a threat to us is very different from torturing them... there's malice involved in the latter IMHO. We wish to eliminate a threat when we kill. When we torture, we want to maximize pain to extract information. Two very different aims.

Killing someone that is a threat to us is very different from torturing them... there's malice involved in the latter IMHO. We wish to eliminate a threat when we kill. When we torture, we want to maximize pain to extract information. Two very different aims.

Sorry I must have implied that Nixon and my daughters employment were at the same time. What Nixon did is common knowledge. My daughter worked for the DIA from 2003 until a few months ago.

I am sure you are a nice guy but killing civilians to find terrorists is a bit sloppy, and as far as malice, yes I am sure that the pilot of the drone has no malice since he just sees bodies, on the other hand he wont be getting any confessions from dead bodies. At least a tortured person is alive, a maimed civilian who loses a leg might not be so well off. I do believe that you are supporting a double standard, whether you know if or not. If Bush did this, Nancy Pelosi would be up in arms.

The assassination by missile policy has been the standard from Bush through the present.

wmolaw - Web crawlers don't bother me. I could download and use one right now to collect email addresses if I wanted to. As far as I'm concerned, all the administration is doing with regard to false info online is "speed reading."

Wiretapping concerns me. Though it was not Obama's brainchild, he's not dropped it. Do I think it's because he wants to know what we private citizens are saying? No. Given the continued violence in the middle east, I'm sure it's a national security thing. But I still don't like it.

Not to put to fine a point on it Ellen, but you and others seem to have an intimate knowledge of President Obama. I am not insinuating anything personal other than I know my wife like no other person on this earth and I would never persume to tell you how she would react to any situation. I believe I might predict her, but I would never assume anything. Most conservatives do not trust people who believe that spending taxpayer money will solve any problem. Hell I didn't like it when President Bush did it and I certainly am scared to death of what the present President is doing. I want the health care problems taken care of like anyone, but I have yet to get anyone to answer the question, "Why not fix medicare first?" We hear it is wasteful and almost bankrupt. I would trust President Obama more if he had fixed what was broken prior to starting a new program. Just an old country boy's thoughts, maybe I am just to dumb to understand.

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 flag@whitehouse.gov.

Hmmmmmm......I am sure they are keeping track, but now they are asking you to do your patriotic duty and turn in your friends! Manufactured outrage, no just plain outrageous!

Ledif Nieht are you a shill for the WH. please do not send them this comment I do not want to get on their fishy list!

DARKE

They aren't asking you to "turn in" your "friends". They are asking you to send them links to erroneous or outright fabricated claims about their healthcare proposals so that they can craft messages to deal with them specifically.

I hate to spoil your visions of SS soldiers with Obama's campaign logo fastened to their arms coming in through your roof to get you, but that is simply not the reality of the situation.

Who would trust Obama to know what is truthful? He lies about it almost every day himself.

They are asking you to send them links to erroneous or outright fabricated claims about their healthcare proposals so that they can craft messages to deal with them specifically.

WRONG!, What do you not understand about:

If you get an email

What I posted is copied off the WH blog directly!

visions of SS soldiers with Obama's campaign logo fastened

No, my nightmare is worse, it is based on a President from the Chicago machine politics! And radical subversives like Ayers and racist like Wright...........but I am sure it was just a bad dream!

DD:

What the hell do you think that the e-mail is going to be about? An apple pie recipe? LOL

If you get an email

E-Mail, links, E-Mails containing links, links to pages that contain reproductions of e-mails that contain links, it doesn't matter, it is all content.

No, my nightmare is worse, it is based on a President from the Chicago machine politics! And radical subversives like Ayers and racist like Wright...........but I am sure it was just a bad dream!

Oh please.

Scott,

Try and keep up the conversation it is about "0bama care" and e-mails!

LN,

E-Mail

Exactally, they asked for links as well!

Oh please.

Wow, you have had the same nightmare!

Yes Ledif, the outrage is manufactured. Ignore it completely.

DD:

Yeah, you seem to be the one with the trouble keeping track. You're crying because the White House asked supporters to forward them e-mails with erroneous claims about legislation that have no expectation of privacy to begin with and are intended for public consumption by virtue of being forwarded to the recipients that might send them onto the White House. If you're afraid of being persecuted, write a chain letter that says anyone who doesn't pass it on will get the plug pulled on their grandma.

Leif, what makes the administrations message more truthful than the other messages other than your own opinion. If I tell you it is cold outside and you go outside and do not think it is cold does that mean I lied to you. Can any of you ever look at anyone's opinion other than your own and think it has truth. There is only one thing that creates truth and that is time. Regardless of what healthcare reform is proposed only time will create the truth of how will it works because it is not yet in existence. Therefore all anyone is fighting for here is the right to state their own opinions and have them heard. Would that be to much to ask?

wmolaw:

It surprises me you take this position. I guess, however, that if it is Obama doing it, it's fine, who cares.

I'm sorry I'm okay with it but I'm a pro. This is how policy arguments are shaped to contradict propaganda against them in reality but the curtain has been pulled back and you're apparently disgusted at what you see. Politics is like war, you're only as good as your intelligence. You get advanced warning that your opponents are going to, say, choke town hall meetings and scream that Obama wants to legalize euthenasia and you're going to cut them off at the pass. Both sides seek this information. The White House publicly asked for it because Obama's organization is on the cutting edge of the Internet which means they had to broadcast what they need from their organization to close this deal on healthcare. It is political malpractice to refuse to seek and utilize such information as you suggest Republicans have done in the past as though this is something new that cropped up in the last week.

But I take a broader look at this, and am surprised you can't see this position.

I see it and I don't agree with it.

The admin says for you to forward e-mails (with all its metadata and information embedded) regarding false health care plans, and you think that's fine and you do it.

Explain to me how the average citizen that wants healthcare reform to pass forwarding it to the White House and someone that works for the DNC forwarding it to the White House is different. It's expediting collection of political intelligence, not breaking new ground.

What is so @!$%#ing pernicious about this is that the white house is asking you to pass them information that WILL NOT lead to an arrest,, or any sort of prevention of a crime. It is for purely political purposes.

Why is that pernicious? It's essentially putting a poll in the field using volunteers.

I read, I think it was yours, post above that this is no different than when GW asked that the citizens of this Country report suspicious behavior re: potential terrorist attacks and, in your statement, this was even WORSE than what Obama is asking.

Pardon me for wanting to be singled out by the White House for criticism of my position on healthcare rather than picked up and questioned by the FBI because my mailman thinks it's strange that I leave my drapes drawn closed all the time.

Your moral compass is so far off (to quote a movie) that I'm surprised you can find your car in the morning.

You already dropped the f-bomb, let's get it right while we're at it. ;-) It goes "Scott, your moral compass is so @!$%#ed up I'll be shocked if you can find your way to the parking lot." Nice movie, Shooter. I'd figure it was a little too leftist and anti-corporate for your tastes though. ;-)

All citizens of this Country, and indeed any country with the rule of law, have a duty and obligation to report information which they believe relates to a crime that may have been committed, or may be committed in the future. Crime deterrence is one of the major activities of a government. GW was just making certain that folks knew this, and that they KNEW that they could help in the prevention of a terrorist act.

Yeah and they could have called 911 like they always have since the 80's. The TIPS program was an attempt by the govt to create a domestic intelligence network for the purpose of legal action against people acting "suspiciously." I'm tempted to say your moral compass is @!$%#ed up since you don't comprehend that the Bush administration was using law enforcement against people ratted out by informers while the Obama administration just wants to argue with them about healthcare.

But this act on the part of the White House is asking for information re: people who merely disagree with Obama's policies. If that is not the harbinger of tyranny, I really don't know what is.

For the hundredth time, they don't want the identities they want the opposition's propaganda. There are many possible harbingers of tyranny, asking people to pass along arguments against legislation isn't one. That's a civic function of a responsible adult that wants to further the public discourse on the legislation.

By the way, how many people, including yourself actually KNOW what the health bill contains, and what is "factual" re: the health bill, or NOT? Hell, even our politicians haven't read it, and if they have they don't understand it and cannot prognosticate about the results it will bring in the future.

It contains a public option which is all I'm concerned with because when I pass off my current insurance on my birthday next year no private company is going to want to give me health insurance on preconditions of asthma, allergies, a repaired hernia and chronic pain from the damage to my spinal cord. Or at least they won't want to give it at a price that I can afford. There are lots of other people like me and I'm curious what people who are against a public option want us to do. Suffer in silence? Be noble while you prevent the govt from offering us help? Sorry, but @!$%# that noise.

So your argument that the White house is just trying to correct false information (and your position too Jack) is, to use Jack's word, just BULL@!$%#!

Congratulations on participating in your first policy debate. It's the White House's turn to call bull@!$%# now.

Obama is seeking information on those citizens who disagree with him, not who are spreading false information for NONE of us know what effects this Bill, if passed, will have, and that includes the ONE!

That's based on your distrust of Obama which isn't logically acceptable. On the other hand, I actually work in politics and know that this goes on without persecution behind the scenes all the time. Who is an objective observer to believe?

There are many possible harbingers of tyranny, asking people to pass along arguments against legislation isn't one. That's a civic function of a responsible adult that wants to further the public discourse on the legislation.

If their goal is to further public discourse on the legislation, wouldn't it be easier for our elected representatives to keep their appointments with their constituents via townhall meetings rather than cancelling them? (or never even scheduling one in the first place...) Seems like it would be more effective than sifting through thousands upon thousands of e mails and weeding out the SPAM, junk or illegitimate conspiracy theories. Seperating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Will they be responding to these e mails and addressing people's concerns? I doubt it.

Scott, can you understand that a good portion of the American public is offended by this for several reasons? As wmolaw stated, the trust level just isn't there. It's no different than the liberal trust level regarding Bush.

Scott -

I'm sure that we have some things in common, but I have questions for you about what you have said here. Not attacking, just clarifying a few things so I can better understand.

That's based on your distrust of Obama which isn't logically acceptable.

How is distrusting Obama - who has said in several instances, that if he can't get legislation he wants directly, he will get it indirectly - not logically acceptable?

On the other hand, I actually work in politics and know that this goes on without persecution behind the scenes all the time. Who is an objective observer to believe?

Considering you 'actually work in politics' - shouldn't the sheer volume of people concerned about this worry you? As a professional, do you ever stop and say - 'maybe we need to not do this particular thing?'

Stopping the current legislation does NOT mean health care reforms can not or will not happen. It just means that the currently proposed legislation will not happen.

Time needs to be taken to get this right. Don't you agree?

The current legislation is so all consuming (and yes, I have taken the time to read all of it, as well as the ongoing amendments that both pass and fail, and will continue to do so) in the future of every individual American's life - doesn't it make sense to give the people a chance to read the actual legislation in completely, think about it, discuss, give our questions, concerns, impressions, and ideas to our various representatives, and representatives have time to address those?

Since when is it OK for the federal government to have an attitude (and I am not saying this is your personal attitude! But it is an attitude that many people are experiencing at the moment) of 'the public doesn't understand what is best for you - but we do, so just agree with us'?

Hatuxka,

This isn't as you desribe below...

doing a very common thing done by all political sides-opposition research-by tracking down the propagation

This is straight from the White House. See the difference?

The White House is gathering misinformation for the first time? SERIOUSLY??? Every administration researches and gathers info about what their opponents are saying. This time, they're simply using technology to make the process faster.

I'm sorry if it will bum you out when the White House holds a press conference to explain that some of the "info" people spread on the Internet is false. It's so much easier to spread lies when your targets don't try to interfere, isn't it?

Ellen's right. Anyone in politics knows this is simply good opposition research. I'd expect nothing less from a guy as skilled as Rahm Emanuel.

That answer may placate someone in politics, but how about mainstream America? What I'll be repeating "around the watercooler" and to customers tomorrow is how Obama is asking citizens to turn in their neighbors who oppose him.

Report me to whomever you please, there is nothing you can do to stop me.

TFP08:

That answer may placate someone in politics, but how about mainstream America? What I'll be repeating "around the watercooler" and to customers tomorrow is how Obama is asking citizens to turn in their neighbors who oppose him.

I'm glad you'll be exercising your First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly. Expect a few of the people you talk to will think that you're cracked.

Report me to whomever you please, there is nothing you can do to stop me.

I don't plan to stop you. I plan to discredit you by showing your argument is bull@!$%#. Simple as that.

But you never seem to discredit the argument Scott, only the person presenting the argument, that is the difference.

riskybusiness:

He has yet to make a specific argument to me. All he's said here is that he's going to the water cooler tomorrow to say Obama is a sonofa@!$%#. *shrugs* I've countered specific healthcare arguments elsewhere here.

In Oct. of last year we had the pentecostals in our parking lot joining hands in a prayer circle, praying to God to remove the Anti-Christ from the ballot. The pentecostals are a little whacked but, hey, to each their own. The point is, so what if some think I'm cracked? There will be others that don't. Those are the ones who I look for. I reinforce their own beliefs about Obama. Then they tell 2 friends and they tell 2 friends and so on and so on......I disagree with the entire socialist agenda, and will do everything I can to impede its advance. I witnessed how the left went after the previous administration and have started to emulate their tactics. Facts, logic and common sense mean nothing. The knee jerk emotional response rules. 3 1/2 years to go, I'm just getting started.

TFP08:

Good. Stop @!$%#ing about others exercising their First Amendment rights to confront your beliefs that you're openly and publicly spreading and we've arrived.

I'm not @!$%#ing about anyones first amendment right. I'm simply telling them they are wrong.

Scott Isaacs, if it was in the interest of opposition research, don't you think it would have been wise to take the extra few seconds it would have cost the writer to state as much in the first place? Government leaves statements vague purposely so they can go back later and say "look, we told you so".

Wake up.

Frank Wells:

Isn't the obvious reason any administration keeps track of criticisms so that it can respond to them?

BTW, I'm awake.

Scott, perhaps you may want to see why and how Nixon was intending to respond to protestors of the Viet Nam non war.

I believe both Congress and the SCOTUS put an end to his arguments of recording protestors.

RB:

Nixon's solution was to hound them and use the IRS like secret police.

Nixon's solution was to hound them and use the IRS like secret police.

It was Clinton's too. He just wasn't as blatant about it.

It was Clinton's too. He just wasn't as blatant about it.

Waynester---correction---Clinton just got away with it.

Economic collapse isn't a real threat? News to me since terrorism from Al Qaeda was geared to collapse our economy. *scratches head* What does wmolaw know that the rest of us don't?

Have you ever heard of Alan Watt, he may have a different idea about who is trying to collapse our economy and why.

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_CTTM_LIVEonRBN_173_Global_Interdependence_will_Erase_Each_Border__The_Rich_Men_Give_a_New_Financial_Order_Sept292008.html

Every hundred years or so the bankers plunder the populace. The ALLOW you to build up equity and property and they collapse it and steal it from you. That's tradition by the banking industry down through the ages. For those who lived their lives without being conscious of what's really going on and who take everything that's going on around them as normal - and it is normal because you're born in to it and everyone else accepts everything in the system - go in to the history of banking and look at how it originated in the Western world. Look at the goldsmiths and how they used to bring in the gold from people and hand out scrip, promises to pay. That's how it started. Then the Knights Templars got in the act and they became the world's biggest banking institution, an INTERNATIONAL banking institution. They did the same thing. You could deposit your gold in a bank - one of their banks - in England, travel all the way to the Middle-East, and take it out again, get gold back again when you cashed it in, in the Holy Land. They acquired real estate ALL over Europe. It was getting to the stage, in fact, they almost OWNED the whole of Europe during the Crusades. Because knights were being killed off and they made it a custom for their widows to hand over everything, on their death, TO the Knights Templars association. It was a form, it was a sort of microcosm of a world government running commerce, industry and warfare at the same time. Nothing's really, really changed.

"I've got my finger on the trigger some people wonder why? 'cause livin in ObamaLand it's going to be do or die!" CH

The 2nd Amendment is the new political 'third rail'.

I love it spleefKGB. Will be my mantra today.

Don't worry, he and the dem congress will be getting around to the 2nd amendment soon.

When the financial crisis hit, I though it would be a good idea to stock up on nonperishables just in case my family got hit hard. I did that in fairly short order.

I just recently stocked up on guns and ammo as well because of what you mention above. That was a little more time consuming. There's not a three day waiting period for a can of beans. =)

Get a concealed carry permit and there is no wait on guns either.

They're not taking government action against them. They're incorporating the disinformation into their response to the public to correct what they believe to be erroneous claims about the legislation. Why should they be afraid to argue with the govt if they're right?

Spot on.

Funny how Scott talks about incorporating disinformation without stating the disinformation and then proceeds to discredit the arguers and not the argument. Perhaps he is next in line for an administration job.

RB:

Want a discredited argument? Okay. Some Republicans say "Do you really want bureaucrats and bean counters deciding whether you get a surgery or not? What kind of medical procedures you have?" In reality, we already have those people deciding what kind of care we receive. They work off actuarial tables created by insurance companies that decide what they cover and who they cover to insure they make a profit. In reality, the power will simply be transferred from these people who grant extraordinary medical care to those that can afford it to govt bureaucrats that will grant extraordinary medical care to people based on some sort of merit system without profit playing a role.

Can you explain to me why making a profit off of curing people's infirmities and diseases should be viewed as acceptable and even laudatory by the American people? Why shouldn't the govt, which has no need to run a profit, provide health insurance with an eye towards covering people that need it and not people that need it who can pay for it at the going market rate to assure it makes money?

because health insurance is a BUSINESS . one I can deal with or not.. one I can CHOOSE to pay or not..the gov can force people to pay , it is not a business, it wants to exert control over my chioce by giving me NO choice..that is the difference.. with an insurance company I still have a choice, the gov will not give you choices they will instead just dictate what they choose..do YOU still not know the difference...

katlin:

The rest of society has to pay for your "choice" not to have health insurance every time you walk into an ER and rely on receiving medical care while paying only what you can. "Choices" like your's are what is bankrupting the system and brought on the problem to begin with. Perhaps it's time for you to be part of the solution for a change.

wmolaw:

How the hell do you know? You are just working on faith here. Wasn't it you who, above, said the pubs worked on faith and that the dems worked on fact and science?

Do some fact-checking, it wasn't me that said it.

Seems you have contradicted your own statement and, like the White House, shown a bit of your real beliefs here.

If you're going to hammer me as having my moral compass @!$%#ed up can you at least accurately quote me?

We've already got gov't medical programs, medicaid and medicare. Why not expand these to cover the people you want covered?

I'll answer it myself. Because they want control over my medical care. Also, if you are on medicare it can be taken away from you as punishment. I personally know a man that had an outstanding child support bill from 20 yrs ago and when he retired and got on SS and medicare, a routine check found this out and the gov't ripped both his SS and medicare. He was on a fixed income from SS and now he's on no income. There is no way for him to pay this twenty year old debt and now he's just screwed. The gov't has no way of denying me medical care now. I don't want them to have the power to.

The rest of society has to pay for your "choice" not to have health insurance every time you walk into an ER

hardly---the rest of society doesn't pay a damn dime for me since I pay my own bills--the rest of society pays for the lazy freeloaders that whine that they can't pay their bill because they have beer and cigs to buy..they whine about not having the money and have never paid a bill they owe anyone and expect to just be able to skip on another one...I work in healthcare and see it all the time..they think that they should be able to complain that a doctor or nurse was rude to them so they don't have to pay the bill...

the excuse that we have to pass this bill so the rest of society doesn't have too, is nothing but a liberal lie and spin...the ones not paying the bills are the freeloaders and illegals , the ones obama still wants us to pay EVEN more taxes for... I am against this bill because the gov wants to control me even more, they want control over my healthcare, bank acct and now it seems my computer...I certainly wouldn't trust obama with my dog much less those other things..

INH:

Exactly my point. It's oppositional research. I'm sure they're combing blogs looking for mischaracterizations of the healthcare legislation as well. I'm mystified as to why people are so wound up since e-mail legally has no expectation of privacy to start with and the senders are exercising free speech that they obviously want the world to hear, hence forwarding it to people.

Weather you are for or against this aside - I want to know how much this is costing us? Am I the only one wondering this?

Weather you are for or against this aside - I want to know how much this is costing us? Am I the only one wondering this?

Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

I was wondering how many e mails the White House is getting flooded with right now from whackjobs who have an axe to grind with their conservative sister who happened to send them an e mail that mentioned healthcare.

HJ:

I'm pretty sure it's a flat rate for data transfer given how much e-mail the White House already fields in a given year.

At least Nixon took the time to make his own "enemies list" rather than trying to get others to do all the leg work for him.

By the way, both parties can put me on their enemies lists, I think they're both equally worthless.

In addition to bandwidth, the WH probably sics a couple of $3000/semester interns on the task for a few weeks. Probably a total cost of less than $5,000.

In the scheme of a $1,000,000,000 healthcare plan, $5,000 is barely a drop in the bucket.

FYI
http://www.rbs2.com/email.htm

The law regards each of these situations as distinct.
Interception of e-mail during transmission is prohibited by federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2510-2521 and also some state wiretap statutes. The federal statutes were amended in 1986 by Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to include e-mail. Reading e-mail during storage on a computer system is prohibited by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2701-2711, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), provided that the system is "providing an electronic communication service to the public." This means, among other things, that your e-mail messages are confidential when stored on a computer owned by an ISP that offers to any member of the public the ability to send e-mail and you pay for the account yourself. But there is no protection in 18 U.S.C. § 2702 for e-mail stored on a computer system operated by a corporation primarily for its own business communications. So, if you send e-mail to a company (e.g., jdoe@ibm.com) and the e-mail is stored on that company's computer, you have no privacy rights under this statute. The recipient of e-mail is generally free to share the information in the e-mail with anyone, subject to legal obligations that are mentioned later in this paper. Reading e-mail that is stored on a computer is not an "interception" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., because an interception must be contemporaneous with the transmission of the message between different locations. Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service, 816 F.Supp. 432, 442 (W.D.Tex. 1993), aff'd, 36 F.3d 457, 460 (5thCir. 1994). This holding has been accepted in several subsequent cases, including Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 384-390 (D.Del. 1997); U.S. v. Moriarty, 962 F.Supp. 217, 221 (D.Mass. 1997); Bohach v. City of Reno, 932 F.Supp. 1232, 1235-36 (D.Nev. 1996).

One court noted that there is a loophole in Title II of the ECPA, where an unknown person can make a copy of e-mail and give it away, then other people who do not provide an electronic communication service can lawfully make a further distribution of copies of that private e-mail. Wesley College v. Pitts, 974 F.Supp. 375, 389 (D.Del. 1997).

Disclosure of contents of e-mail by the recipient is not a crime, unless there were disclosure of classified material to unauthorized persons.

RB:

Disclosure of contents of e-mail by the recipient is not a crime, unless there were disclosure of classified material to unauthorized persons.

Thank you so much for making my argument for me, chum! :-)

the WH is not interested in countering disinformation, they have tons of people combing the internet for info everyday..this WH is afraid of the truth, they want to be able to have time to cover for their lies..they are afraid that people have uncovered them for what they are ..a group of liars..it should not surprise anyone that obam would resort to these kinds of tactics..everything he does is staged and false..he can't even hold his own town hall meeting without it being a near hollywood production..he is afraid to answer questions from the real americans..

I have never seen an administration that has such an adversion to dissent. One that tries to avoid it at all costs. It's especially odd, given the fact that this is a very liberal administration...the party that claims to welcome dissent.

yes pat N, it borders on paranoia...we have a paranoid liberal president that's for sure.. I just have to wonder, why all the secrecy and paranoia that the public will find out what it is he is hiding? obama sure is about double standards, for every thing he has said he has done the opposite. tout transparency and he acts on secrecy and squealing...no new taxes and he proposes policies that result in the biggest tax hike in history..help mainstreet and he helps business buds and puts even more people out of work..he's says he's for healthcare but his bill is anti -care, he's against war but escalates the one we have, etc. etc.

obama sure is about double standards, for every thing he has said he has done the opposite. tout transparency and he acts on secrecy and squealing...no new taxes and he proposes policies that result in the biggest tax hike in history..help mainstreet and he helps business buds and puts even more people out of work..he's says he's for healthcare but his bill is anti -care, he's against war but escalates the one we have, etc. etc.

I'm looking forward to 2012. He's supplied the Republican nominee so much ammo for the campaign already. I can just imagine how much more he'll supply in the next 3 years! Maybe he's actually trying to be a 'one-termer' and just screw up the country as much as he can in that four years.

and if GW was asking that folks do this re: disagreement with the war? Same opinion?

Come on, a bit of intellectual honesty from you guys would be welcome here.

First off, I'm by no means a fan of the healthcare reforms. I'm certain they'll make things worse in the long run.

Second, you're right we'd all have gone bat@!$%# insane if Bush was collecting info about dissent about the Iraq War. But this is a bit different. It's rather typical to consider those opposing a war to be 'traitors' and we have a history of jailing or punishing them (Alien and Sedition Acts, Montana Sedition laws, etc.). However, it's less a given that criticism of governmental healthcare policies could lead to punishment or suspicion.

Finally, at least Obama hasn't gone around capturing, torturing and imprisoning people without trial. He's only continuing to imprison those who were extrajudicially kidnapped arrested and tortured. Give him a little credit. :P

It's just SPAM.

Ayyyyeeeeeee.......eyes watering, trying to catch breath.......oh crap, don't forward this comment to the WH as it may comeback to bite me when i am forced to see a gov. doctor!

No, really I am fine......cough, cough..............crap!

wmolaw:

No one has said what the White House is doing is illegal, get it?

So because it offends your delicate sensibilities you want it to stop?

Scott, old chum :)

I was not making an argument, I was stating a fact. You should try it some time.

RB:

You stated a fact that made my argument and I thank you for it. ;-)

Where was all the Republican outrage when the Bush Administration was collecting ALL THE EMAIL sent in America?

I dont know, where? I believe that hope and change is in the White House, not Bush.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. but I guess you dont see it that way do you ?

Where was all the Republican outrage when the Bush Administration was collecting ALL THE EMAIL sent in America?

There was no such program to my knowledge, but Clinton definitely had one, called Echelon. But that was OK, he was a Democrat.

Waynester:

We've had Echelon since the 1980's.

As for your lack of knowledge, I introduce you to Carnivore.

It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. but I guess you dont see it that way do you ?

Thanks for making that assumption, however you are wrong. My point was simply that the Bush Administration was illegally wiretapping American citizens without warrants or court review and intercepting vast quantities of email. However, anyone who dared voice an opinion that the practice was bad was labeled a traitor or a terrorist. What has changed?

There was no such program to my knowledge

You sound like Alberto Gonzales giving Congressional testimony. Ignorance of the law is not a criminal defense and assuming something didn't happen because you didn't know about it doesn't fly either.

We've had Echelon since the 1980's.

As for your lack of knowledge, I introduce you to Carnivore.

Yes and did Clinton move to abolish it? That would be no. And has Obama moved to abolish any intelligence collecting program? That would be no. So much for hope and change, huh?

Waynester:

Yes and did Clinton move to abolish it?

Why should he? Echelon gives the United States a distinct intelligence and economic advantage over the rest of the world. Why should Obama? Why should any president?

And has Obama moved to abolish any intelligence collecting program?

You've illustrated the danger of a President like Bush. Once the govt gets its hand in your pocket it is damn near impossible to get out and Cheney used Bush to ram the govt's hand through my pocket and down my leg. It's the guy you supported for President that's to blame for this because he opened the barn door. The horse is already gone.

Would you like to admit your ignorance of Carnivore now? Or are you a bit too proud to do that?

Why should he? Echelon gives the United States a distinct intelligence and economic advantage over the rest of the world. Why should Obama? Why should any president?

And has Obama moved to abolish any intelligence collecting program?

You've illustrated the danger of a President like Bush....

Once the govt gets its hand in your pocket it is damn near impossible to get out

Oh,I get it. Obama really is the messiah for you, isn't he? The man is a saint in your eyes, isn't he? It all comes down to Bush bad, Obama good.

Sad, really.

Would you like to admit your ignorance of Carnivore now? Or are you a bit too proud to do that?

I had simply forgotten about it. No big deal.

Waynester:

Oh,I get it. Obama really is the messiah for you, isn't he? The man is a saint in your eyes, isn't he? It all comes down to Bush bad, Obama good.

No, you don't get it. You're far from getting it. It's Lord Acton: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No President, Republican or Democrat, is going to give back the Executive power that the Bush administration wrested from Congress. It's why we're supposed to have checks and balances in our govt. By subverting that, Cheney did great damage to our system of governance that no President is likely to fix.

When have you EVER known a government to willingly give back power without a fight? Ever? Bush and Obama are both politicians and the practice of politicians is to collect power. It's not good or bad, it's who's responsible for accruing the power and that was the Bush administration. If you're afraid of being persecuted by Obama, complain to Bush because he's the one that gave Obama the tools to do it to you.

and how you use that info ..bush used it to combat foriegn terrorists, obama wants to use it against your neighbors and family..american citizens...guess the liberal kool-aid drinkers don't recognize the difference..

wmolaw:

But, why did you show such outrage over that, an action which touched on national security, and the FACT as admitted by the White House now, that they are doing the same "keeping track" of e-mails for purely political purposes?

What don't you understand about this? Warrantless wiretaps could be used to mobilize law enforcement to punish people by abridging their rights. Bush specifically went around a court that was formed and at his beck and call to quickly issue warrants but instead he wanted to monitor everything. The current White House is using no govt organs to find and collect this information nor is the information being used to question, detain or arrest anyone. The fact that you keep skirting the legal implications indicates you're dense or specifically avoiding the issue because you know you can't win the discussion on it and I know you're not dense.

Scott---the Bush Administration was targeting terrorists who wanted to harm Americans----the new terrorists according to the Obama Administration are innocent AMERICAN civilians who dare to expose the lies (what the WH calls "disinformation") being told by this president.....note the subtle difference?

The current White House is using no govt organs to find and collect this information

And you believe that because they say so? hmmmm.

lisaed:

Kind of like the way the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame because her husband exposed the lie that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger? Ring me when Obama endangers national security just to assure his healthcare plan passes Congress.

Waynester:

And you believe that because they say so? hmmmm.

No, I believe it because there are no leaks coming from the intelligence community. You honestly expect seasoned professionals in intelligence to stand silently by if Obama was using our national security apparatus to pass a healthcare reform bill? LOL

Kind of like the way the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame

Scott---more misinformation from the peanut gallery.....oh, wait....Armitage was at State. My bad. Oh, and Obama has done plenty to harm national security---like trying to rush to close Gitmo to make good on some lame campaign promise without a plan......like deciding to and then reversing his decision to release "torture" photos.....like deciding to release justice documents designed to criminalize policy differences national security be damned---hey did you hear who the fall guy will likely be for all of THAT? Obama lead counsel.....:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124935604510503669.html

What a freaking bunch of losers.

lisaed:

Yeah, terrible disinformation what with Lewis Libby being convicted in a court of law and, thus, the only person on public record as having outed Plame. If Libby wasn't guilty then explain to me why Bush refused to pardon him.

Scott---Libby was not convicted of outting Valerie Plame. That statute was never proven to be violated by anyone (not even Armitage). They got Libby on process indictments (faulty memory and such) plain and simple. Bush commuted the jail sentence and believed that was sufficient.

lisaed:

Oh wait, you're right. He was convicted of lying under oath about outing Plame and what his conversations with Cheney on the subject consisted of.

You can read the article yourself: Bush thought he was guilty and even though he was pressed hard by Cheney in the closing days of the administration he wanted remorse from Libby before he would pardon him. Bush wouldn't have wanted remorse if he didn't think Libby was guilty to start with. Fred Fielding also thought Libby was guilty and didn't deserve a pardon. Everyone with their head on straight in the administration knew Libby outed Plame and was told to do so by Cheney.

Everyone with their head on straight in the administration knew Libby outed Plame and was told to do so by Cheney.

Scott---everyone knew except I guess Fitzgerald. Oh, and you cannot out someone who was already outted by someone else. And for the last time the statute was not violated. More disinformation from you....you are on a roll.

No, I believe it because there are no leaks coming from the intelligence community

The intelligence community has no way of knowing (officially, anyway) what's going on politically inside the White House. This is about politics, not national security.

And for the last time the statute was not violated.

Exactly. You can tell when someone thinks they're losing ground when they dredge up stuff like the Plame affair and mischarcterize it to boot.

By subverting that, Cheney did great damage to our system of governance that no President is likely to fix.

Cheney simply tried to reacquire the power of the office that had been ceded by previous administrations. This power struggle is ongoing and will be forever so. The good news is that the more time they spend struggling with each other the less time they spend screwing with us, which I believe, was the original intent.

Hopefully you explained the same to Scott about the law. Govt. itself has no right to free speech nor to suppress it. The right of free speech belongs solely to the people. Did Nixon find this out the hard way?

Since when did getting elected to office strip one of their Constitutional rights?

an individual has no RIGHT to my e-mails whether he works for the gov or the neighborhood gas station...the gov itself has no rights to free speech, only the people.

It turns out if you do it in secret, executive privilege protects you from most of the bad press for a decade.

Remember when the Bush Administration suggested that mail carriers report "suspicious" activity of the people whose houses they visited?

http://www.slate.com/id/2133564/

Remember when the Bush Administration suggested that mail carriers report "suspicious" activity of the people whose houses they visited?

Yep. I still will and I'm not even a letter carrier. One never knows.

wmolaw:

Can you put up the teenage drama queen act for a few minutes? It's getting old. Both are conducting the collection of intelligence except one administration used it to question people that had nothing to do with terrorism and perhaps even torture them. The fact you find that okay but are outraged by this says something about you, but I'm not sure what.

Also, can the Obama-Jesus references. If you want a discussion from me I refuse to be patronized to like some kind of heathen.

Both are conducting the collection of intelligence except one administration used it to question people that had nothing to do with terrorism and perhaps even torture them.

Scott--evidence please---name names. You are guilty here of "disinformation" about the Bush Administration.

Scott--evidence please---name names. You are guilty here of "disinformation" about the Bush Administration.

He read it on Dailykos (or maybe Sy Hersh told him) so it simply must be true!!

lisaed:

Scott--evidence please---name names. You are guilty here of "disinformation" about the Bush Administration.

Lisa, you don't understand. Under the new rules of everyone outraged by the White House you can't demand I prove anything and you can't distribute the statement I made in #16.5. In fact, you've broken serious moral codes by even quoting it. How dare you take my own words and further publicize them for your own purposes? Shame on you! You're un-American and a harbinger of tyranny. Leave my words alone, the First Amendment gives me custody of them!

Scott --16.8---nice try at a dodge and an obama-like NON-ANSWER.....deflect deflect deflect. You don't have any names and you know it.

I made the statement to make a point. How do you like it when bull@!$%# is spread around your house?

Scott---what was your point? That you had no answer to my question? Which in 16.10 you prove yet again. Thanks.

The point is you wanted to refute my argument. How do you think the White House feels?

Now they go back to the Bush did it and that makes it alright argument. Anybody know any bankrobbers that got away with it. I need some money.

How do you think the White House feels?

Scott---like they are living in AMERICA, the greatest country on earth.......(oh, scratch that last bit cause I don't believe the WH thinks that's true).

scott---like they are living in AMERICA, the greatest country on earth

yah so let's change that...to a socialsit/fascist obamaland..

Scott---like they are living in AMERICA, the greatest country on earth.......(oh, scratch that last bit cause I don't believe the WH thinks that's true).

And you can base this statement on what? facts? quotes? oh no that's right... you can't. Why? Because its based on your opinion and your interpretation of Democratic objectives, which are exactly that only opinion, just like the rest of your suspicion about the White House collecting rumors about the healthcare bill. Come back with proof and facts, and then maybe we can consider this argument about Obama asking people to "turn in" dissenters legitimate.

And you can base this statement on what? facts? quotes?

Brian--I base it on the text of just about every Obama speech given on foreign soil where he feels compelled to apologize for his country for one thing or another. Go look up the transcripts yourself if you are not familiar with Obama's apology tour, kay?

If he didn't think America was the greatest country, then why would he be living here? I think it's good that he says we may have made mistakes in our foreign policy in the past, because we have.

Hmmm.... young jobless men lured by wages. Nah, can't happen here.

Hmmm... declare a state of emergency. Or maybe a crisis. Nah, can't happen here.

Hmmm... Individuals lost the right to privacy. Like the measurs included in HR3200. Nah, can't happen here.

Hmmm... end individual freedoms, including freedom of press, speech, and assembly. Perhaps by claiming the opposition is organizing unruly mobs that needs to be stopped. Nah, it can't happen here.

HMMM... moved quickly to turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship. Something like "WE WON WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT." Nah, it can't happen here.

Hmmm... Individuals lost the right to privacy. Like the measurs included in HR3200. Nah, can't happen here.

You know Roe v. Wade is based on a right to privacy.....hmmmm.....I wonder if this bill will negate that and make overturning it possible?

I am just sayin!

Darkdonnie -

Shhhh, we aren't supposed to have read it that thoroughly, much less have looked at its potential long term implications!

(Its almost like being a teenager again, and that feeling of - 'Oh my gosh - we are going to get sent to the Principal's office!' haha)

It's legal to spy on all of us. Bush saw to that. All our electronic communications are filtered in a total monitoring system. Keywords can be entered and citizen communication with those keywords will be pulled out of the stream.

Might not be working very well since Pelosi pissed off the intelligence community. Then there was that thing about torture.

ALL those anti-American programs must be eliminated.

Yet Obama has not acted. Obama, the Bush from the alternate universe.

Something kreepie is going on.

It's legal to spy on all of us. Bush saw to that. All our electronic communications are filtered in a total monitoring system. Keywords can be entered and citizen communication with those keywords will be pulled out of the stream.

And the democratic controlled congress extended all of those programs. Its hardly one-sided.

That's my point, Tim. This is non-partisan. The Rat-On-Your-Neighbor part is partisan - people you don't like, from outside your tribe, get singled out - but the rest of these programs don't discriminate. If I lose my freedoms, you lose yours, too, no matter the party affiliation or lack of one. The opposite applies. We're ALL under the data mining web, we're all ensnared.

Bush "reassured" us that only those making calls outside the USA, and those in the network of those making calls outside the USA, would receive special attention. I spoke with somebody in either India or Pakistan last week, so I'm screwed, as are my friends, associates, and family. I had/have an insurance issue, and my call was forwarded to some boilerroom overseas. Who else has had this experience in the last, say, month? Ever?

This particular case needs to be investigated. I think there might be some psychological projection going on, and we need to understand if it is. Nevertheless, as above, these are our common civil liberties. This is non-partisan. Demand your freedoms back - our best shot at getting them back in now. Time IS NOT on our side. This is like a cancer on our democracy, and the longer we wait, the greater the damage and the less effective the cure.

I spoke with somebody in either India or Pakistan last week, so I'm screwed, as are my friends, associates, and family.

Why? Did you plan a terrorist attack? No? Then stop fretting. The idea is to avoid our soil from again becoming an active battlefield and signals intelligence is vital to that end. Even Obama seems to understand that.