Megyn Kelly asks Bill Burton a simple question about emails

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Adn4n
She knows they're not allowed to alter the emails and she still brings up the question to try to implicate them? This isn't objective journalism.

On another note, I need affordable health care.

Whether she knows or not is another question, but I suspect it is against the Law to do so. If an Investigation of where E-Mail addresses came from was initiated, it would be difficult to know if the WH/Government were free to alter E-Mails at their discretion. It would just be bad records keeping to allow that kind of thing.

She was clearly trying to tie the "Enemies List" with whether E-Mail addresses were Deleted or not. Implying the existence of such a list, because the WH/Government wasn't actively deleting E-Mail Addresses, therefor the List existed. Of course that's a Logical Fallacy, but when has that stopped Fox News?

Or she was trying to point out that even if a list does not exist it could be created with the saved emails. That's not a Logical Fallacy.

They are probably both correct. An email list does not exist but the complete emails do exist.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Adn4n
She knows they're not allowed to alter the emails and she still brings up the question to try to implicate them? This isn't objective journalism.

On another note, I need affordable health care.

Then why cant he answer no? It is absolutely objective journalism to question your government.

Because it would confirm they have the information available to use and that's all some people need to complain about this WH healthcare feedback system and try to get it shut down.

If this had been done under the Bush administration for the Iraq war the same people here saying this is not a big deal would be very upset to say the least. Free speech without government retribution?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus
So how exactly are people getting emails from the government they never signed up for?

Cave dweller, Pat? There are these things called "mailing lists" for sale to political campaigns and Action Committees. Both parties have been buying them for years.

So the executive branch of government is no the same thing as a political campaign or a political action committee?
There are some very specific laws as to what government can use and what a campaign or PAC can use and what they can and cannot share. This type of action is a big no no according to those laws if that is in fact what happened.

I was just responding to your inquiry on where they could have possibly obtained the email addresses, not speculating on the propriety of their having done so.

I have yet to see one of these emails, nor have I talked with anyone who received one. Can you find anything that shows whether they were sent from OfA or from whitehouse.gov?



edit: the only references I find state they were from David Axelrod; they do not specify from what domain they originated.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80
lol imagine the outrage in P&N if the bush admin did this and set up flag@whitehouse.gov all the leftists would be yelling fascism. But since it's their savior Obammer they turn a blind eye.

Its not so much a blind eye as it is "its not that big of a deal if you take it in context". That seems to be the most used excuse.
Kind of like marrying multiple 12 year olds. Its all in the context.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

They should just have used the NSA to datamine email traffic like Real Americans would!

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
She was clearly trying to tie the "Enemies List" with whether E-Mail addresses were Deleted or not. Implying the existence of such a list, because the WH/Government wasn't actively deleting E-Mail Addresses, therefor the List existed. Of course that's a Logical Fallacy, but when has that stopped Fox News?

So answer this question: How are people, who have never signed up for an email from the white house, getting emails from the white house?

Are they using that "compiled" list?
Are they illegally using campaign email lists?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus
So how exactly are people getting emails from the government they never signed up for?

Cave dweller, Pat? There are these things called "mailing lists" for sale to political campaigns and Action Committees. Both parties have been buying them for years.

So the executive branch of government is no the same thing as a political campaign or a political action committee?
There are some very specific laws as to what government can use and what a campaign or PAC can use and what they can and cannot share. This type of action is a big no no according to those laws if that is in fact what happened.

I was just responding to your inquiry on where they could have possibly obtained the email addresses, not speculating on the propriety of their having done so.

I have yet to see one of these emails, nor have I talked with anyone who received one. Can you find anything that shows whether they were sent from OfA or from whitehouse.gov?



edit: the only references I find state they were from David Axelrod; they do not specify from what domain they originated.

They are coming from info@messages.whitehouse.gov

Link
Link

 

[blackangst1]

I like an idea I saw on a blog...email the POTUS with this:

TO: President of the United States, Barack Obama

As a concerned citizen, I respectfully demand that your Administration rescind the troubling citizen-reporting program recently set forth by your White House Director of New Media.

Creating a program that requests individuals to report on their neighbors, co-workers, family members, and friends who express personal opinions in opposition to your policy choices is not the way to encourage ?openness? and ?transparency.? It is tantamount to policing ideas. Such a program will only stifle free and open debate among the citizens of this great country.

This nation was founded on a belief in the necessity of free and open discourse on the important policy and political issues of our day. Your program is counter to these core principles and raises serious concern among the American people. We respectfully, yet urgently, request that the program be withdrawn and that you preserve and protect the First Amendment rights of the citizens of America.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Adn4n
She knows they're not allowed to alter the emails and she still brings up the question to try to implicate them? This isn't objective journalism.

On another note, I need affordable health care.

Whether she knows or not is another question, but I suspect it is against the Law to do so. If an Investigation of where E-Mail addresses came from was initiated, it would be difficult to know if the WH/Government were free to alter E-Mails at their discretion. It would just be bad records keeping to allow that kind of thing.

She was clearly trying to tie the "Enemies List" with whether E-Mail addresses were Deleted or not. Implying the existence of such a list, because the WH/Government wasn't actively deleting E-Mail Addresses, therefor the List existed. Of course that's a Logical Fallacy, but when has that stopped Fox News?

Or she was trying to point out that even if a list does not exist it could be created with the saved emails. That's not a Logical Fallacy.

They are probably both correct. An email list does not exist but the complete emails do exist.

They've already declared the list exists, you can't back track and change it to "It could be made". Logical Fallacy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: sandorski
She was clearly trying to tie the "Enemies List" with whether E-Mail addresses were Deleted or not. Implying the existence of such a list, because the WH/Government wasn't actively deleting E-Mail Addresses, therefor the List existed. Of course that's a Logical Fallacy, but when has that stopped Fox News?

So answer this question: How are people, who have never signed up for an email from the white house, getting emails from the white house?

Are they using that "compiled" list?
Are they illegally using campaign email lists?

Where's the Proof they are?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

They are coming from info@messages.whitehouse.gov

Link
Link

Are you freaking kidding me? So they're using the snitch site to capture e-mails/addresses and spam them back with more disinformation? This has to be breaking some kind of law and if it isn't it's the most embarassing anti-freedom thing any president has ever done. Is this an impeachable offense?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sciwizam
They are coming from info@messages.whitehouse.gov
Link
Link

Are you freaking kidding me? So they're using the snitch site to capture e-mails/addresses and spam them back with more disinformation? This has to be breaking some kind of law and if it isn't it's the most embarassing anti-freedom thing any president has ever done. Is this an impeachable offense?

I'm glad you're over that jumping-to-conclusions thing, spidey. It's obvious that if the emails come from whitehouse.gov (still just anecdotally reported) they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere but their so-called "snitch site", right? Equally obvious that the Axelrod emails are patently "disinformation" as well? Definitely outweighs any of Nixon's political tricks?

I'm certainly glad you aren't at all given to hyperbole...

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: sandorski
ffs, her question is stupid. He was responding to the blatant innuendo of the question. Ownage not found.

So how exactly are people getting emails from the government they never signed up for?

Cave dweller, Pat? There are these things called "mailing lists" for sale to political campaigns and Action Committees. Both parties have been buying them for years.

You may want to notify porky.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Bill Burton makes Robert Gibbs look like a genius, why is it so hard to tell the truth?

Video

Wow... budmantom, its rare that you post your own asinine tripe... usually you just grace other people threads with your asinine tripe.

Is Patranus making you jealous? you are botha bunch of winnar's in my book =)

May the education fairy bless you both this evening.

Thanks for making a typical leftist post.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Adn4n
She knows they're not allowed to alter the emails and she still brings up the question to try to implicate them? This isn't objective journalism.

On another note, I need affordable health care.

She asked if they delete them and he said that they don't alter them, put down the kool aid and listen to the clip.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

You might want to try a different analogy; it's not entirely clear that the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed lawful.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The government has set up a mechanism where it encourages citizens to provide personally identifiable information about those who don't like what that government is doing.

As has been said, if Bush had done it he'd have been dumped on and with good cause. Of course the Obamapologists consider this no big deal, which isn't the least surprising. No neocon stood by his President right or wrong any better.

Congrats.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

You might want to try a different analogy; it's not entirely clear that the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed lawful.

I'm sure if the Bush administration had done this you would have gone through great lengths to defend him.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The government has set up a mechanism where it encourages citizens to provide personally identifiable information about those who don't like what that government is doing.

As has been said, if Bush had done it he'd have been dumped on and with good cause. Of course the Obamapologists consider this no big deal, which isn't the least surprising. No neocon stood by his President right or wrong any better.

Congrats.

Incorrect. They have asked to receive the kinds of misinformation that Citizens have been receiving. Something completely different than your Innuendo.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

You might want to try a different analogy; it's not entirely clear that the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed lawful.

Ah youre right. What with all the indictments going on and all.

 

[piasabird]

So we could bankrupt the Whitehouse by sending millions of E-mails every day. It is kind of stupid to have to keep all incoming E-Mails. It is the crooked politicians we need to watch, not the innocent tax payers.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

You might want to try a different analogy; it's not entirely clear that the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed lawful.

I'm sure if the Bush administration had done this you would have gone through great lengths to defend him.

???

I'm just looking for facts. If it's shown that laws were broken, those responsible should be prosecuted; if it's proven that the Obama administration is keeping an "Enemies List", I'll be among the first to condemn it.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
....they couldn't possibly have gotten the addresses anywhere...

Which is ILLEGAL...

Can you cite an appropriate statute? So far, I've only seen speculation.

Well, its shady, and those much smarter than us are looking into it, specifically the Privacy Act of 1974. It may turn out to be like Bush's torture...not illegal per se under current law. But shady to say the least.

You might want to try a different analogy; it's not entirely clear that the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" were indeed lawful.

Ah youre right. What with all the indictments going on and all.

lol