The Nixon of our Day?

2009-09-16 08:09:09

#1

13rin: Member; +977|6883

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/electio … latestnews

I would have added other links to the more "reputable" sources, but apparently this isn't news worthy to them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … _position1

You guys agree with this? Or does this have more sinister overtones? For example, imagine a list of those who criticize the supreme community organizer finds its way to IRS for people to be audited?

*edit: missed the link from NYTIMES.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-09-16 08:44:41)

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 08:22:18

#2

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6557|what

If it is on the internet, chances are it is within the public domain and free to be lifted.

2009-09-16 08:28:05

#3

13rin: Member; +977|6883

AussieReaper wrote:
If it is on the internet, chances are it is within the public domain and free to be lifted.

I can understand that, but this specifically is logging those disparaging the president and his policies. Why does he feel the need to do this?

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 08:31:11

#4

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6972|Mountains of NC

he wants to find everybody that says anything in the negative about him and send

https://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/091609_carter_20090916_103744.jpg

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2009-09-16 08:37:23

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6557|what

DBBrinson1 wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
If it is on the internet, chances are it is within the public domain and free to be lifted.
I can understand that, but this specifically is logging those disparaging the president and his policies. Why does he feel the need to do this?

Well when you look at it from their point of view, it's just in-depth sampling of responses to the govt. policy/actions.

If they think they are being seen in to harsh a light in one area of policy, they start churning out the ads dismissing the public perception.

Or if they think they are seen in a good light in an area, they may focus on that during the next set of campaign ads as a positive.

I do consider it an unfair advantage, if the opposition parties are not also given access to the information.

2009-09-16 08:45:44

#6

(T)eflon(S)hadow: R.I.P. Neda; +456|7233|Grapevine, TX

Wow I actually found another source, amazing!

I sent a few emails directly to flag@whitehouse.gov with my full contact info a few weeks back, before the "shut it down." I explained that I would request for these emails, under the freedom of information act, in the future. Funny how they shut it down so quick. The power grab of this administration is nothing short of astonishing. They can audit me all they want Im not worried, I have nothing to hide, including my opinion, stated here of anywhere else.

On a side note I approve of the President's (off-the-record) remarks here:

politico.com wrote:
Terry Moran, a reporter for ABC News, upset the White House last night when he tweeted:

“Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.”

The tweet was soon removed, but not before it spread throughout the Twitosphere.

Did President Obama really say it? If so, why was it removed from Moran’s Twitter page? Here’s how ABC later explained it:

In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.

So there’s no question that Obama said it. He just doesn’t want anyone to know he said it, because, apparently, it’s not Presidential to call someone a jackass.

This undoubtedly explains the President’s complete silence on the ACORN scandal. It’s just wouldn’t be Presidential to call an organization “a bunch of corrupt jerks who are ripping off the American taxpayers and undermining democracy.”

2009-09-16 08:45:44

#7

13rin: Member; +977|6883

AussieReaper wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
If it is on the internet, chances are it is within the public domain and free to be lifted.
I can understand that, but this specifically is logging those disparaging the president and his policies. Why does he feel the need to do this?
Well when you look at it from their point of view, it's just in-depth sampling of responses to the govt. policy/actions.

If they think they are being seen in to harsh a light in one area of policy, they start churning out the ads dismissing the public perception.

Or if they think they are seen in a good light in an area, they may focus on that during the next set of campaign ads as a positive.

I do consider it an unfair advantage, if the opposition parties are not also given access to the information.

So you think they are just going to use this to combat the more prevalent arguments against the admin?

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 08:47:08

#8

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6557|what

DBBrinson1 wrote:
So you think they are just going to use this to combat the more prevalent arguments against the admin?

Well I don't think black vans will put up to your house and kidnap you in the middle of the night if they read you don't like them.

2009-09-16 08:49:55

#9

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6972|Mountains of NC

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
Wow I actually found another source, amazing!

I sent a few emails directly to flag@whitehouse.gov with my full contact info a few weeks back, before the "shut it down." I explained that I would request for these emails, under the freedom of information act, in the future. Funny how they shut it down so quick. The power grab of this administration is nothing short of astonishing. They can audit me all they want Im not worried, I have nothing to hide, including my opinion, stated here of anywhere else.

On a side note I approve of the President's (off-the-record) remarks here:
politico.com wrote:
Terry Moran, a reporter for ABC News, upset the White House last night when he tweeted:

“Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.”

The tweet was soon removed, but not before it spread throughout the Twitosphere.

Did President Obama really say it? If so, why was it removed from Moran’s Twitter page? Here’s how ABC later explained it:

In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.

So there’s no question that Obama said it. He just doesn’t want anyone to know he said it, because, apparently, it’s not Presidential to call someone a jackass.

This undoubtedly explains the President’s complete silence on the ACORN scandal. It’s just wouldn’t be Presidential to call an organization “a bunch of corrupt jerks who are ripping off the American taxpayers and undermining democracy.”

Kanye is now going to hate black ppl

What a min. here ........... Is it racist if Obama calls lil west a jackass ........ carter and that reporter are calling Joe a racist ... hmmmm

2009-09-16 08:49:59

#10

13rin: Member; +977|6883

AussieReaper wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
So you think they are just going to use this to combat the more prevalent arguments against the admin?
Well I don't think black vans will put up to your house and kidnap you in the middle of the night if they read you don't like them.

hehe. Yea, I couldn't see that happening either... However, I could see names being passed to various agencies for a bit more indepth 'investigating'.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 08:54:50

#11

13rin: Member; +977|6883

SEREMAKER wrote:
Kanye is now going to hate black ppl

What a min. here ........... Is it racist if Obama calls lil west a jackass ........ carter and that reporter are calling Joe a racist ... hmmmm

Only if it is the white half of Obama talking...
Kanye hates everyone except himself. And Beyonce.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 08:56:32

#12

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6557|what

DBBrinson1 wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
DBBrinson1 wrote:
So you think they are just going to use this to combat the more prevalent arguments against the admin?
Well I don't think black vans will put up to your house and kidnap you in the middle of the night if they read you don't like them.
hehe. Yea, I couldn't see that happening either... However, I could see names being passed to various agencies for a bit more indepth 'investigating'.

Oh I'm sure if they come across some really anti-US sentiment posting they would pass it on to CIA or whichever organisation is suitable.

But this sort of mass profiling for public opinion is a powerful tool that any govt. would find hard not to use.

2009-09-16 09:02:46

#13

13rin: Member; +977|6883

AussieReaper wrote:
Oh I'm sure if they come across some really anti-US sentiment posting they would pass it on to CIA or whichever organisation is suitable.

But this sort of mass profiling for public opinion is a powerful tool that any govt. would find hard not to use.

Yea. I was think more of a "hey lets give this list to the IRS for audits", but I defiantly see your point. Too bad that the information then will most be likely used to counter argue instead of using it to incorporate other ideals...

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-09-16 09:07:41

#14

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6557|what

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea. I was think more of a "hey lets give this list to the IRS for audits", but I defiantly see your point. Too bad that the information then will most be likely used to counter argue instead of using it to incorporate other ideals...

Actually you make a very good point there, one way of looking at the data is as "the court of public opinion" when it could also be used to help shape the law.

Either way, it's got a lot of potential to do either good or bad.

2009-09-16 18:27:08

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6809|North Carolina

This is no worse than FISA.

2009-09-17 03:13:35

#16

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6815|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
This is no worse than FISA.

FISA is what requires a warrant to use National intelligence assets in a law enforcement support role.

How is this not worse?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-17 17:39:42

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6809|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
This is no worse than FISA.
FISA is what requires a warrant to use National intelligence assets in a law enforcement support role.

How is this not worse?

Because the information given for this is voluntary. No one forces you to post on the government's websites.

On the other hand, additions to FISA like the Patriot Act open the door for not needing a warrant altogether for wiretappings and such.

2009-09-28 04:12:42

#18

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6815|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
This is no worse than FISA.
FISA is what requires a warrant to use National intelligence assets in a law enforcement support role.

How is this not worse?
Because the information given for this is voluntary. No one forces you to post on the government's websites.

On the other hand, additions to FISA like the Patriot Act open the door for not needing a warrant altogether for wiretappings and such.

The following up/tracking of the information provided is, however, not voluntary.

And you are still woefully confused/misinformed on the limitations of FISA and the PATRIOT Act, Turq. Sound bites do not a law make.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-28 04:39:09

#19

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7172

Obama is checking my facebook status???? AWESOME!!!!

BF2S Forums The Nixon of our Day?

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

politico.com wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

politico.com wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer