"A new White House tactic to control the message on health care reform has critics accusing the Obama administration of playing "Big Brother" and threatening the privacy of average Americans."
"No one expects that when they exercise their First Amendment rights to ask questions or complain about a proposed government program that they're going to be listed on a database in the White House," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told FOX News Thursday, saying the White House effort raises serious privacy concerns. "You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the potential for serious abuse."
"On Tuesday, the White House posted a blog that asked supporters to report "fishy" information they come across about the health insurance debate. The appeal was made at the end of the blog, which showed a video that countered a set of online clips that made it look like Obama wanted to eliminate private coverage."
"We have seen and as I've discussed from this podium a lot of misinformation around health care reform, a lot of it spread, I think, purposefully. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people that if they have questions about health care reform and about what they're hearing about its effects on them, to let us know and we provide information to show that isn't true. But nobody is collecting names," Gibbs said."
I don't really think it is a big deal. It does show the thuggery and overall type of politician President Obama is. I do know that there would be outrage if Bush did this. Since the "one" is doing this, no big deal.
Let me see if I got this straight. In 2005, when Cornyn was told about Bush's domestic wiretapping program and he said it didn't matter, that was nothing to worry about. But when Obama fights back against liars and smear merchants, and Cornyn makes up crap about "he's gathering ISP's!", that's cause for alarm?
ReplyDeleteSo real spying is OK, as long as it's done by a Republican. But imaginary spying is something to worry about, if it's imagined that it will be done by a Democrat?
Do you also believe that chick on Glenn Beck who thinks that the Cash for Clunkers website gives the government total access to your computer?
How many "forward this to twelve friends" spams do you fall for?
Yes of course it is OK as long as it is done by Republicans. Get with the program!
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with what you are talking about. You might have a point, but I do remember that Bush was using this information gathering to fight a war, not to gather information on political enemies. Again I don't know what you are talking about, so I could be wrong. I stated this was not a big deal in my eyes. It does show who President Obama is. My whole point was that if Bush did this, there would be outrage. There is a double standard.
I think there is some point to what Glen Beck had to say about government access to your computer, but I don't think it is something to get extremely angry about.
I believe as of today I have fallen for 146 of the emails. I just can't seem to figure it out. Think for helping me to overcome this trap.
Think you again.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bush managed to catch exactly how many terrorists with his "information gathering"? I believe that the exact number was somewhat less than one.
ReplyDeleteAnd if his sole purpose was to find terrorists, why was it necessary to gather all telephone records from every phone company, except for one of the smaller ones who refused to comply?
And, of course, that point is somewhat moot in the context of your argument, which is that Obama was gathering information in the first place, much less "compiling an enemies list."
Let's apply a little logic to this. If the White House wanted to start a covert intelligence gathering operation, why would they plant themselves in the middle of it, and announce it publically? Where does that even begin to make sense to you?
Wouldn't it be easier to simply use a few of those NSA assets and plant a worm on Google, to follow people who fit certain parameters in their web searches? Or, more to the point, bug the obvious locations, like, say, this blog right here. That would net four of you. And with a little internet surveillance, would lead to your friends, and the websites where you hang out. And, of course, they could backtrace to your home computers.
That would be a lot more effective than getting 6000 copies of the same email from FreedomWorks (Dick Armey's group), or "Americans for Prosperity" (which has been industry-funded from the beginning, and is currently chaired by billionaire David Koch).
Oh, and let's not forget "Conservatives for Patients Rights," the ironically-named group organized by Richard Scott to fight against universal health care. Funny thing about that. The group claiming that government-run healthcare will ruin America is being run by the former frontman for HCA, which was fined $1.7 billion dollars for defrauding Medicare - which makes them an enduring symbol of everything that's wrong with American healthcare.
I mean, feel free to continue to let yourself be manipulated by lobbyists for the healthcare industry, but at least be honest about whose bidding you're doing, OK?
Due to the very nature of the evidence it would not be made public, but I do believe that were several instances of where this information gathering did lead to the capture of terrorist. I could be wrong. I don't have time to verify that I am remembering correctly. Other than that point, your argument is good about not making it public.
ReplyDeleteI never said the White house wants to start some "intelligent gathering operation", the White house said this. "On Tuesday, the White House posted a blog that asked supporters to report "fishy" information they come across about the health insurance debate." I don't think this is some top secret high tech, under the radar thing. I believe the Senator's statement above had a point.
I remember reading some news stories stating how insurance companies and most of the health care industry is behind Obama on his health care reform. So your argument that the health care industry is lying and manipulating the facts is moot. Drug companies are behind him, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_drugmakers
From Fox News: "President Obama on Monday hailed a health care industry[to include insurance companies] proposal to cut costs over the long term as an "historic" step in the quest for health care reform."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/10/health-care-industry-reps-offer-trillion-savings-source-says/
Please give me some proof of how any information I have presented on health care reform has been manipulated or manufactured by the insurance companies. Is the CBO doing the bidding of the insurance companies? Is the Heritage Foundation? Is Fox News? Is the very bill itself written by the insurance companies? If I am doing their bidding, I want to get paid for it.
Do you have any proof of your claims that these organizations are being run by the people you claim? A link from a news story? I have not cited any information from these groups.
When I look at the government run health care of Canada and England and I see health care rationing, is that being manipulated by the insurance companies? When I have doctors from these systems state how bad it is, are they being paid by the insurance companies? Are the conditions in Canada and England really not that bad? This is the single payer system that Obama wants to implement as shown by his statements, so I can understand why insurance companies would come out against this proposal. Why is this necessarily a bad thing? It is ok for the White House to lie about health care but, if they are lying, it is not OK for the insurance companies? I don't think any information I have presented has come from insurance companies.
I am for an intelligent debate. Not blind accusations. Why are you for health care reform? I would like some facts on how it is a good thing. I don't do the bidding of any organization. I like to think critically and for myself.
Nameless Cynic, thanks for reading our blog! Did you send us to flag@whitehouse.gov like a good little Soviet lackey? We're clearly a threat to the state because we spoke contradictions to Dear Leader. But, to be slightly serious: Bush's wiretapping program was monitoring calls from the US to suspected terrorist locations overseas. Not random phonecalls of Americans inside America, but phone calls that had a certain probability (not necessarily high) of being terrorist related. After we had been attacked by terrorists. Not doing something like this would have been extraordinarly stupid for a nation that had the slightest interest in defending itself, or the behavior of a nation run by liberals, no real difference. To compare what Bush did (and what all nations attempt to do) to protect themselves from terrorists with Obama's Soviet style 'rat on your neighbor who is speaking terrible untruths about the president' is beyond ridiculous. Note that Obama is not asking people to 'rat on people that are plotting violent overthrow of the government' or 'rat on people that are plotting terrorists act's, it's 'rat on people who disagree with the Executive branch of the US Government'. Narcing on people whose opinions differ from the governemnt's: truly, Soviet style, Big Brother style behavior. Being a liberal, of course, this is fine with you when you're in power.
ReplyDeleteYour 'apply a little logic' is ridiculous. Bush & the CIA were attempting to identify groups that were plotting violent acts against the United States. Obama is trying to identify people who disagree with him. Or, if he's not trying to identify them, why did the government make the 'rat on your neighbor' statement at all? I won't question your datamining comparison, but why the heck say it at all? As they say, please apply the "If Bush had said this..." test and see how disgusting Obama's (or his representatives, I don't know for sure who issued this request) request is and see how ridiculous your defense of Obama here is.
RTP readers, if you haven't read 1984 yet, you need to hurry up and do it. Obama's 'Rat on your neighbor' program is straight out of 1984. Nameless Critic, note that Winston Smith was not working with Eastasia for the violent overthrow of Oceania. He was working to get the government out of his life. Gosh, any parallels to this issue? Nameless Critic, did your fists clench with rage at Winston Smith's attempt to work out reality against the dictates of his government? I imagine so.
Get a clue.
Well, that's a mass of text to go over. Let's see.
ReplyDeleteJeff:
Bush's wiretapping program was huge and unprecedented, and it should have set you off, unlike this imaginary one that Cornyn (and now you) are trying to push. And no, Bush's wasn't just overseas communications:
President Bush and his aides have confirmed that the NSA, beginning in late 2001, monitored electronic communications between the United States and overseas without warrants in cases in which one of the parties was believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. But administration officials have recently acknowledged that the NSA program was broader, and intelligence sources inside and outside the government have described a vast effort to collect and analyze telephone and e-mail communications that were later scrutinized by the government for desired information.
See? That's the kind of thing you should have been upset about, if you'd been paying attention two years ago. This current effort? This is a paranoid, conspiracy-theorist compost heap, trying to build a conspiracy out of fecal matter and dark thoughts.
Yes, the insurance companies are trying to stay involved and appear to help. They're trying everything they can to derail this; for example, they hired 300 lobbyists and are spending $1.4 million a day to fight it.
Hmm... evidence that the health industry lobbies are behind all this? Well, both this is pretty well-sourced. Click through the links before you just dismiss it out of hand.
As for England's and Canada's healthcare, it's surprising how, when you ask people who've been there instead of GOP flaks, it really isn't as bad as the Republicans want you to believe. The "health care rationing" you refer to is the fact that people with non-urgent needs are put on a waiting list. But since the average time to get in and see a specialist is three weeks, and my wife just had to wait 2 month for an appointment with a nephrologist, maybe they aren't doing that too bad, either.
So, you know, thanks for the response. You'll have to excuse me, though. I'm going to need to leave the realm of "civil discourse" now. I tend to respond to people in the same tone they use with me. So, like I said, excuse me, but I have to slap one of your slower friends around a little.
Bud-D:
ReplyDeleteDid you send us to flag@whitehouse.gov like a good little Soviet lackey?
OK, kid. Tell me when you want to be polite. In the meantime, have you put me on your enemies list like a good little proto-fascist? I'm easy enough to find - even your easily-insulted friend ToeJamm could manage it. (Did I get the name right this time?)
Lemme skim down - I already answered the wire-tapping idiocy, but you're right. It wasn't "random" phone calls, it was all of them.
Not doing something like this would have been extraordinarly stupid for a nation that had the slightest interest in defending itself, or the behavior of a nation run by liberals, no real difference.
Oh, you mean like ignoring a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US? Christ, don't you even read the papers? Or are you too busy scrapbooking pictures of Sarah Palin and hoping that she runs in 2012?
(I'll tell you the truth - I'm kind of hoping that, too. Just not for the same reason.)
Lemme just quote you here, to show up your utter inadequacy as a thinker.
Note that Obama is not asking people to 'rat on people that are plotting violent overthrow of the government' or 'rat on people that are plotting terrorists act's, it's 'rat on people who disagree with the Executive branch of the US Government'. Narcing on people whose opinions differ from the governemnt's: truly, Soviet style, Big Brother style behavior. Being a liberal, of course, this is fine with you when you're in power.
Read the reports again, little brownshirt. The White House wanted to find out about the lies being pushed by the people who don't want healthcare reform, so that they could refute them as they cropped up. Much like they did with the "fight the smears" website. Or is reading just too hard for you? (You know that there are sources for news outside of Fox and WND, right?)
So, next time, if you want civil answers, act like an adult.
And get a clue.
Dang, Nameless Cynic busted me! I am in fact scrapbooking Sarah Palin pictures!
ReplyDeleteThat you think this:
"President Bush and his aides have confirmed that the NSA, beginning in late 2001, monitored electronic communications between the United States and overseas without warrants in cases in which one of the parties was believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. But administration officials have recently acknowledged that the NSA program was broader, and intelligence sources inside and outside the government have described a vast effort to collect and analyze telephone and e-mail communications that were later scrutinized by the government for desired information."
is something we should be alarmed about rather than something we should be expecting our government to do in a national emergency shows how far off the deep end you are, and reinforces the perception of the extreme anti-US feelings of Democrats. Thanks for proving our points Nameless Cynic. Again, for the third or fourth time, note that the government here is looking for plans to commit violence against this nation, rather than looking for differences of opinion. That this is a meaningless difference to liberals speaks volumes.
And then in the next sentence you ask us to trust that the government treat our information (turned in by others) and opinions with respect and discretion. Which again, compared with Democrats trust of government during the Bush administration is laughable. And yes, even in Nameless Cynic's fantasy world of completely benevolent government inquiry into the opinions of its citizens (this fantasy just arose when the Messiah was elected to the presidency), those e-mails and website URLs that are turned in are official government records, as a matter of law! So, all we have to protect us is our trust in the Obama administration. That's so reassuring.
Again, thanks for proving our points about Democrats' and liberals' values and priorities. RTP readers can use this response as an example of where libs and Dems are coming from.
Thanks for being gentle with your slapping.
Side issue: What is WND?
But, thanks for visiting, and re-reading my reply to your initial comments show that you were not particularly ad hominem and I was a little too ad-hominem and I do apologize for that. You are our first troll! I was a little excited. But as a contributor to this blog, I should behave better.
Troll: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community...
ReplyDeleteWell, since the truth is apparently inflammatory to y'all, I guess I'll live with the title.
First of all, let's consider your point.
That you think this (the US government monitoring all communications originating within the United States)is something we should be alarmed about rather than something we should be expecting our government to do in a national emergency...
Think about that statement for a second. Then consider:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (B. Franklin)
Now, a few facts that apparently slipped under your radar:
Within weeks of the Patriot Act passing, student demonstrators, people working for global justice, animal rights supporters and peace activists all found themselves characterized as "terrorist sympathizers." Over a thousand people were arrested, and eighty percent of them were held without any disclosure of their identity or the charges against them to the public.
Does that fit your definition of an "enemies list"? But it's OK, right? Because it was something we should be expecting our government to do in a national emergency, by your definition.
The California National Guard set up a special unit in 2004. Called the Information Synchronization, Knowledge Management and Intelligence Fusion program (which verifies that the US government sucks at setting up an acronym), the Guard originally said that this unit would not gather information on American citizens.
So what was one of their early projects? On Mother's Day, 2005, they monitored an anti-war rally set up by the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. Which would obviously be a hotbed of terrorist activity.
(This, by the way, is illegal for another reason. Look up the "Posse Comitatus Act.")
There are considerably more examples. But it's unlikely to change your mind. But those are concrete examples of the behavior you want to pretend Obama is committing. Think about it.
Dude, Nov 2001? I'm supposed to feel sad that PETA & ELF and their fanboys found that Domestic Terrorism was no longer chic two months after 3000 dead in a deliberate attack? And supporters and sympathizers came under scrutiny? And were temporarily inconvenienced by the government because of this? Were you grieving for the persecution of Tre Arrow by the Bush Administration? You're really reaching, and reaching far off topic of Obama's program (as a troll would do).
ReplyDeleteYour bumper sticker comment aside, temporary suppression of personal liberties in time of national crisis has almost always occurred. Yes, sometimes severe and overreaching - Japanese internments - and I agree that it needs to be closely monitored. The temporary inconveniences experienced by a number of people, and the occasional, sometimes inappropriate harrassment of a few with ties to questionable groups in time of national crisis does not constitute a major personal liberty problem. I doubt your ability to express your opinions was suppressed in those days.
We are worried that our opinions and liberities will be suppressed for a far less appropriate reason, and the manner in which it is being done recalls the Soviet Union and 1984.
Not sure if you have a good point or not regarding the Cal Natl Guard, but, being Natl Guard, I'm not sure you can directly tag the Bush administration with it, and am also not sure if the anti-war rally included terrorist sympathizers or not. If a crime was committed there, doubtless the Obama administration's Justice department will be all over it.
I think the commenting on this thread is just about done. We need to get on to new topics to piss you off!