Megyn Kelly asks Bill Burton a simple question about emails

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: 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.

It doesn't matter how they're trying to frame the request, we both know that the vast majority of what they're receiving probably includes names, registered URLs, and/or e-mail addresses of the "offenders."

I sincerely doubt that many submitters are removing or omitting that type of information.

There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior by our government, regardless of parties or politics.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...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.

Time to go review your law school classes, Bucky. A lack of indictments does not mean no crimes were committed.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yeah... I'm sure you will.

You are looking at the facts with EIT and looking the other way with rendition.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...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.

Time to go review your law school classes, Bucky. A lack of indictments does not mean no crimes were committed.

So only a partisan hack would insinuate that EIT were crimes and these emails are nothing?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: 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.

It doesn't matter how they're trying to frame the request, we both know that the vast majority of what they're receiving probably includes names, registered URLs, and/or e-mail addresses of the "offenders."

I sincerely doubt that many submitters are removing or omitting that type of information.

There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior by our government, regardless of parties or politics.

That's our president bringing the country together, that's how he rolls.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...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.

Time to go review your law school classes, Bucky. A lack of indictments does not mean no crimes were committed.

So only a partisan hack would insinuate that EIT were crimes and these emails are nothing?

Some Enhanced Interrogation Techniques mirror acts that were deemed War Crimes in the Second World War, for which Japanese officers were tried and convicted. These emails could be a very big deal, but I have yet to see anyone cite any specific statutes that may have been violated. Can you help with that?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: daniel49

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



Video

thier both, babbling, two faced morons /rant

Don`t you mean their all three( including the Op of this thread) babbling two faaced morons...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: 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.

It doesn't matter how they're trying to frame the request, we both know that the vast majority of what they're receiving probably includes names, registered URLs, and/or e-mail addresses of the "offenders."

I sincerely doubt that many submitters are removing or omitting that type of information.

There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior by our government, regardless of parties or politics.

Duh, of course they are receiving that information. WTF "behaviours" are you talking about? The alleged "Enemies List" is a complete fabrication. AKA-Innuendo.

Use your brain.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: daniel49

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



Video

thier both, babbling, two faced morons /rant

Don`t you mean their all three( including the Op of this thread) babbling two faaced morons...

Run along little troll.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Duh, of course they are receiving that information. WTF "behaviours" are you talking about? The alleged "Enemies List" is a complete fabrication. AKA-Innuendo.
Use your brain.

The "Enemies List" is speculation, not fabrication. I'm not even going to imply there actually is one, but I might not be so quick to give Rahm Emanuel the benefit of the doubt...

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...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.

Time to go review your law school classes, Bucky. A lack of indictments does not mean no crimes were committed.

Ah thats right. What with all of Bush's popularity with the Dems (and the country for that matter) Im sure they would give him a wink and a pass.

:roll:

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: 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.

It doesn't matter how they're trying to frame the request, we both know that the vast majority of what they're receiving probably includes names, registered URLs, and/or e-mail addresses of the "offenders."

I sincerely doubt that many submitters are removing or omitting that type of information.

There is simply no excuse for this type of behavior by our government, regardless of parties or politics.

Duh, of course they are receiving that information. WTF "behaviours" are you talking about? The alleged "Enemies List" is a complete fabrication. AKA-Innuendo.

Use your brain.

Their request for people to report on other peoples' messages is the behavior I was referring to -- The WH doing such a thing is entirely unprecedented and entirely unacceptable.

What they may be doing with the collected information may be even worse, but that's still to be determined.

We already KNOW that they're guilty of the first behavior; the second is simply a potential escalation of their wrongdoing.

My brain is working just fine today, thanks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.
He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.
By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.
You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Well said! At the very least the Obama administration is guilty of massive stupidity in their handling of this issue.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Lol, you're being paranoid.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Lol, you're being paranoid.

I would think after the last eight years Democrats would think a little paranoia to be a normal reaction...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: 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...

I don't know the law/regulations in this matter and why I'm posing the questions, but what i smell stinks. I work in networking/security so I know all about forging E-mail. I want facts. So far we have allegations that seem sound and a defense of them from a technology perspective should be really simple.

Eitherway, my nose is smelling shit on the whitehouse until they prove otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Lol, you're being paranoid.

The best way to evade a logical argument is to belittle it. I say again, what was said in this interview that would give credence to your claim, and discredit my contention?

Why the evasion? Am I so beyond them that I can say something they cannot? No indeed, yet here is it. I can do what they cannot, or will not.

A child knows such gross deception and obfuscation because he has not taught himself to lie in order to make the world conform to what he would have it be.

It's a great shame that many adults have.

All you need do to prove me wrong is to use his words as spoken to reassure us that I am mistaken.

Is that so difficult?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Well said! At the very least the Obama administration is guilty of massive stupidity in their handling of this issue.

Whether or not you agree with his policies the administration has "acted stupidly" in their handling of almost every issue.

A simple "I will look into this issue" would have been fine but being overly defensive always casts some doubt on the situation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Lol, you're being paranoid.

The best way to evade a logical argument is to belittle it. I say again, what was said in this interview that would give credence to your claim, and discredit my contention?

Why the evasion? Am I so beyond them that I can say something they cannot? No indeed, yet here is it. I can do what they cannot, or will not.

A child knows such gross deception and obfuscation because he has not taught himself to lie in order to make the world conform to what he would have it be.

It's a great shame that many adults have.

All you need do to prove me wrong is to use his words as spoken to reassure us that I am mistaken.

Is that so difficult?

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

How and why did the whitehouse send out propaganda to private citizen's E-mail addresses.

Answer the question.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Well said! At the very least the Obama administration is guilty of massive stupidity in their handling of this issue.

Whether or not you agree with his policies the administration has "acted stupidly" in their handling of almost every issue.

A simple "I will look into this issue" would have been fine but being overly defensive always casts some doubt on the situation.

?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

How and why did the whitehouse send out propaganda to private citizen's E-mail addresses.

Answer the question.

How, Outlook or some other Program.

Why, to answer peoples enquiries, just as the program was designed to do.

Question answered: Where's the Proof that there's an insidious Intent here?

Answer the question.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

How and why did the whitehouse send out propaganda to private citizen's E-mail addresses.

Answer the question.

How, Outlook or some other Program.

Why, to answer peoples enquiries, just as the program was designed to do.

Question answered: Where's the Proof that there's an insidious Intent here?

Answer the question.

I'm not claiming insidious intent, I'm claiming information gathering regarding E-mail addresses (as already proven).

The why is left to interpretation but we've seen this before with other dictators and to believe otherwise shows ignorance.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 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.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Lol, you're being paranoid.

The best way to evade a logical argument is to belittle it. I say again, what was said in this interview that would give credence to your claim, and discredit my contention?

Why the evasion? Am I so beyond them that I can say something they cannot? No indeed, yet here is it. I can do what they cannot, or will not.

A child knows such gross deception and obfuscation because he has not taught himself to lie in order to make the world conform to what he would have it be.

It's a great shame that many adults have.

All you need do to prove me wrong is to use his words as spoken to reassure us that I am mistaken.

Is that so difficult?

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.