WhiteHouse wants you to snitch....

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fuck you. This is the people fighting against you. This is OUR COUNTRY, we own it, you work for us. Fuck you obama.

cool down glenn beck. Nobody cares what you do personally, but we should know who is running propaganda campaigns against uhc and what their reasons are.

Why?:shocked: What does it matter if someone or, some organization is either strongly for something or strongly against it? We still have the right to our own opinions don't we? Why in this instance does it matter if the president, congress or anyone for that matter knows exactly whom is for or against UHC?:roll:

Because the federal government isn't just anyone. If they want names it isn't because they have nothing else to do. What will they do with that information? I don't know anymore than if Bush wanted people to report those who spoke out against the war. I'd wager people would be yelling if that had been done, and I'd be among them.

It's a very different issue between a massive industry spending big money to influence public opinion, and citizens forming their opinions on war.

But the fact is that the government *was* infiltrating anti-war groups inappropriately - little old ladies' anti-war were being infiltrated.

I'm not going to accuse you of hypocrisy on that - I assume you are willing to say you are against it - but there's a big difference here you aren't understanding.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The Nazi's were best at dealing with traitors...the gas ovens didn't just burn jews.

You're comparing the Obama Administration's monitoring of the well-funded disinformation campaign by the insurance industry with the Nazis burning people.

And there you have the modern right-wing cult paranoia and idiocy in our country. I'm not enjoying it like Eskimospy is, but his word foaming is correct.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You know this is what Bush failed to do. He should have had people report websites contrary to his ideas.

WTF does the government need people reporting on people to them? We compiling a list of unAmerican Activities? Great.

Get your paranoia under control. We're talking about a well-funded marketing campaign by the health insurance industry, not Americans exercising their free right to read socialist magazined in their pursuit of the best form of government. We're talking about their trying to counter the well-funded marketing campaign when they don't have the same budget for marketing - Harry and Louise beat Bill and Hillary - not about 'blacklisting' citizens in order to further Joe McCarthy's political power based on lies.

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how the US government is at a disadvantage to insurance companies when the entire Democratic machine is dedicated to this agenda. Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

No, I don't trust any of them, and they haven't given me any reason to change my mind. In this case I'd rather be a bit paranoid than gullible.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

 

[blackangst1]

Wow. I wonder what the wing nuts on the left would be saying if GWB put out a memo to email in if you hear of someone spreading disinformation about the WOT...

Answer: they'd go APESHIT.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

If there is a crime, then it is the governments business to look into it. The idea of freedom is that groups or individuals are NOT subjects of the government. I don't like either side lying, however it's not Uncle Sams business to hunt down objectors. It needs to prove it's own case, and so far it hasn't done much other than complain about disinformation.

To put it bluntly, the lowliest citizen is to be the master of the highest government office. It is not DCs place to "look into" what it's citizens legally do, even if they are trolls.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

It truly amazes me how the left is so blind to the fact that they are everything they claim to despise. The lengths posters around her go to justify all this BS is actually disturbing. You really don't see it. That is scary as hell.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

If Obama and crew spread disinformation should that be looked into also? This is just Obama and the far left being bitter over the American people revolting against government run health care. I will keep saying it but it is as low and disgusting as you can get having a website to turn those with the opposing view point in. I can only imagine your reaction if Bush and Rove tried this with people against the war. It is sad that Obama is sinking further than Bush so fast to pass his agenda.

 

[JSt0rm]

ok i dont do gangbangs.

 

[monovillage]

They're just making a new version of the White House Enemies list.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: spidey07
DNC press release included?

I'm no Democrat by any means, but rather an independent who used to lean Republican before the Bush administration ran the party into the gutter.

Originally posted by: spidey07
America has awaken to the disinformation of this administration and we won't stand for it.

Can you provide examples?

Originally posted by: quest55720
Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

The Obama administration is not asking people to report those against his heath insurance reform initiative, but rather simply whatever disinformation about it is circulating. On the other hand, the Bush administration had on need to have others report disinformation about their Iraq war initiative, as they were the ones spreading it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

It truly amazes me how the left is so blind to the fact that they are everything they claim to despise. The lengths posters around her go to justify all this BS is actually disturbing. You really don't see it. That is scary as hell.

The irony that your post describes the right rather than the left put aside for the time being, you don't help much with your mere allegation of some unspecified issue being missed. We really may need some 'how to argue' lessons for this forum, because so many posters regularly miss the most basic content of how to argue a point.

*What* specificially are the issues you simply call "everything they claim to despise"? What is your evidence the left is supporting those things?

Here are a few things that appear to contradict your vague claim:

Some things 'the left' despises:

- Excesses in concentration of power and wealth

- The power and weatlth in this country are concentrated in the hands of a small group to a certain degree many on the left view as excessive. We're talking about people having this power and wealth personally, not government, whether government is acting to serve the general public or small parts of it. If you want to argue that point, it's not what we're talking about - we're tallking about you saying the left support what *it* despises, rightly or wrongly, now your opinion of what you want it to despise.

How is the left supporting the increase of concentration of wealth and power in private hands?

- The left despises anti-democratic measures, such as dishonest propaganda campaigns funded by wealthy selfish interests to mislead voters. How are they support that?

- The left supports helping the poor and middle class, helping to ensure their basic needs are met - healthcare in this case. How is the left helping to oppose healthcare for people?

And so on.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: quest55720

Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

its not whos against uhc. What if it turns out that the insurance companies are spreading massve amounts of disinformation and all this goes back to them? Don't you think that should be looked into? i'm sick of money=speech thats bs

It truly amazes me how the left is so blind to the fact that they are everything they claim to despise. The lengths posters around her go to justify all this BS is actually disturbing. You really don't see it. That is scary as hell.

The irony that your post describes the right rather than the left put aside for the time being, you don't help much with your mere allegation of some unspecified issue being missed. We really may need some 'how to argue' lessons for this forum, because so many posters regularly miss the most basic content of how to argue a point.

*What* specificially are the issues you simply call "everything they claim to despise"? What is your evidence the left is supporting those things?

Here are a few things that appear to contradict your vague claim:

Some things 'the left' despises:

- Excesses in concentration of power and wealth

- The power and weatlth in this country are concentrated in the hands of a small group to a certain degree many on the left view as excessive. We're talking about people having this power and wealth personally, not government, whether government is acting to serve the general public or small parts of it. If you want to argue that point, it's not what we're talking about - we're tallking about you saying the left support what *it* despises, rightly or wrongly, now your opinion of what you want it to despise.

How is the left supporting the increase of concentration of wealth and power in private hands?

- The left despises anti-democratic measures, such as dishonest propaganda campaigns funded by wealthy selfish interests to mislead voters. How are they support that?

- The left supports helping the poor and middle class, helping to ensure their basic needs are met - healthcare in this case. How is the left helping to oppose healthcare for people?

And so on.

/shakes head

Youre an amazing poster, Craig234

 

[JSt0rm]

i knew that they suspended the vote to give the insurance industry time to destroy this thing. I even posted as such. I don't think we will see healthcare reform for another 20 years. Sad really.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The irony that your post describes the right rather than the left put aside for the time being, you don't help much with your mere allegation of some unspecified issue being missed. We really may need some 'how to argue' lessons for this forum, because so many posters regularly miss the most basic content of how to argue a point.

YHPM

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You know this is what Bush failed to do. He should have had people report websites contrary to his ideas.

WTF does the government need people reporting on people to them? We compiling a list of unAmerican Activities? Great.

Get your paranoia under control. We're talking about a well-funded marketing campaign by the health insurance industry, not Americans exercising their free right to read socialist magazined in their pursuit of the best form of government. We're talking about their trying to counter the well-funded marketing campaign when they don't have the same budget for marketing - Harry and Louise beat Bill and Hillary - not about 'blacklisting' citizens in order to further Joe McCarthy's political power based on lies.

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how the US government is at a disadvantage to insurance companies when the entire Democratic machine is dedicated to this agenda.

Ask Biull and Hillary, whose faces were flattened when they ran into Harry and Louise.

And it's happening again.

As I said, the private industry with many billions at stake has among other things reportedly hired 350 former Congressional members and staffers to lobby on their behalf - nothing like that exists for the administration, nor does the administration have the 'Harry and Louise' marketing budget that is so effective at shifting public opinion. They have the President to speak, and a few staffers for working on the information campaign. They're david to the well-funded ad campaign's Goliath - hence the difficulty even tracking ads.

Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

I disagree with your version of events. The administration is explaining its position for the people to decide.

No, I don't trust any of them, and they haven't given me any reason to change my mind. In this case I'd rather be a bit paranoid than gullible.

You are being gullible when it comes to the power of the private insurance industry to leverage its massive war chest to manipulate public opinion to screw the public.

But you apparently would rather be gullible on that than paranoid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: spidey07
DNC press release included?

I'm no Democrat by any means, but rather an independent who used to lean Republican before the Bush administration ran the party into the gutter.

Originally posted by: spidey07
America has awaken to the disinformation of this administration and we won't stand for it.

Can you provide examples?

Originally posted by: quest55720
Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

The Obama administration is not asking people to report those against his heath insurance reform initiative, but rather simply whatever disinformation about it is circulating. On the other hand, the Bush administration had on need to have others report disinformation about their Iraq war initiative, as they were the ones spreading it.

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

People are going to link or copy the email or site. I'd like to see something from the government about it's plan which isn't fishy. Should I report it?

Seriously now, considering that we're in the dark regarding what it is we'll have to accept speculation is going to run wild. Certainly the Reps are going to oppose anything the Dems come up with, and it's in the interest of the insurance companies to paint it in a bad light, but it seems the tactic is to deny anyone information of which one could be critical, or supportive for that matter. So for the sake of political expediency, it seems we have the deliberate obfuscation of the most important change brought about by government since slavery was ended, and we're not supposed to be suspicious?

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You know this is what Bush failed to do. He should have had people report websites contrary to his ideas.

WTF does the government need people reporting on people to them? We compiling a list of unAmerican Activities? Great.

Get your paranoia under control. We're talking about a well-funded marketing campaign by the health insurance industry, not Americans exercising their free right to read socialist magazined in their pursuit of the best form of government. We're talking about their trying to counter the well-funded marketing campaign when they don't have the same budget for marketing - Harry and Louise beat Bill and Hillary - not about 'blacklisting' citizens in order to further Joe McCarthy's political power based on lies.

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how the US government is at a disadvantage to insurance companies when the entire Democratic machine is dedicated to this agenda.

Ask Biull and Hillary, whose faces were flattened when they ran into Harry and Louise.

And it's happening again.

As I said, the private industry with many billions at stake has among other things reportedly hired 350 former Congressional members and staffers to lobby on their behalf - nothing like that exists for the administration, nor does the administration have the 'Harry and Louise' marketing budget that is so effective at shifting public opinion. They have the President to speak, and a few staffers for working on the information campaign. They're david to the well-funded ad campaign's Goliath - hence the difficulty even tracking ads.

Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

I disagree with your version of events. The administration is explaining its position for the people to decide.

No, I don't trust any of them, and they haven't given me any reason to change my mind. In this case I'd rather be a bit paranoid than gullible.

You are being gullible when it comes to the power of the private insurance industry to leverage its massive war chest to manipulate public opinion to screw the public.

But you apparently would rather be gullible on that than paranoid.

You mean like Obama getting 1 hour on a major network to sell his health care part of a all day sell of his plan. You mean like Obama getting 1 hour press conference on all major networks to sell his plan? I have yet see the insurance industry get enough money to get a 1 hour infomercial during prime time TV.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: spidey07
DNC press release included?

I'm no Democrat by any means, but rather an independent who used to lean Republican before the Bush administration ran the party into the gutter.

Originally posted by: spidey07
America has awaken to the disinformation of this administration and we won't stand for it.

Can you provide examples?

Originally posted by: quest55720
Exactly if Bush had a website to report those against the war the left would of been up in arms. This is about as low and disgusting as you can go.

The Obama administration is not asking people to report those against his heath insurance reform initiative, but rather simply whatever disinformation about it is circulating. On the other hand, the Bush administration had on need to have others report disinformation about their Iraq war initiative, as they were the ones spreading it.

If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

People are going to link or copy the email or site. I'd like to see something from the government about it's plan which isn't fishy. Should I report it?

Seriously now, considering that we're in the dark regarding what it is we'll have to accept speculation is going to run wild. Certainly the Reps are going to oppose anything the Dems come up with, and it's in the interest of the insurance companies to paint it in a bad light, but it seems the tactic is to deny anyone information of which one could be critical, or supportive for that matter. So for the sake of political expediency, it seems we have the deliberate obfuscation of the most important change brought about by government since slavery was ended, and we're not supposed to be suspicious?

You say it like it's ok and not a problem for Repubolican to automatically fight any effort to help tens of millions of Americans get healthcare, and to deal with the costs.

Others might call that treasonous to the interests of Americans - what if Al Queda could cause tens of millions of Americans to lose healthcare benefits? Many times more Americans lose their lives every year to the lack of healthcare access, than have been killed by Al Queda in history. People would be up in arms about that 'terrorism', but you just casually say it's no problem for the Republicans to do the same thing 'for political reasons'.

How about a littlle justified moral anger against the people who would obstruct the well being of so many for such selfish reasons? Is that too much to ask?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

I disagree with your version of events. The administration is explaining its position for the people to decide.

I would like to know how an explanation, sufficient enough to make a decision, can be given without specifics

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You know this is what Bush failed to do. He should have had people report websites contrary to his ideas.

WTF does the government need people reporting on people to them? We compiling a list of unAmerican Activities? Great.

Get your paranoia under control. We're talking about a well-funded marketing campaign by the health insurance industry, not Americans exercising their free right to read socialist magazined in their pursuit of the best form of government. We're talking about their trying to counter the well-funded marketing campaign when they don't have the same budget for marketing - Harry and Louise beat Bill and Hillary - not about 'blacklisting' citizens in order to further Joe McCarthy's political power based on lies.

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand how the US government is at a disadvantage to insurance companies when the entire Democratic machine is dedicated to this agenda.

Ask Biull and Hillary, whose faces were flattened when they ran into Harry and Louise.

And it's happening again.

As I said, the private industry with many billions at stake has among other things reportedly hired 350 former Congressional members and staffers to lobby on their behalf - nothing like that exists for the administration, nor does the administration have the 'Harry and Louise' marketing budget that is so effective at shifting public opinion. They have the President to speak, and a few staffers for working on the information campaign. They're david to the well-funded ad campaign's Goliath - hence the difficulty even tracking ads.

Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

I disagree with your version of events. The administration is explaining its position for the people to decide.

No, I don't trust any of them, and they haven't given me any reason to change my mind. In this case I'd rather be a bit paranoid than gullible.

You are being gullible when it comes to the power of the private insurance industry to leverage its massive war chest to manipulate public opinion to screw the public.

But you apparently would rather be gullible on that than paranoid.

Really?
Give me specifics of the health care plan. I don't want talking points. There have been several threads complaining about how private insurance denied services.

Will the government deny treatments? Will it decide what the physician will do? Will he or she have the right to decide what to do based solely on their medical expertise or not, regardless of cost? What if that treatment conflicts with a bureaucratic policy, even if well established such as off label prescribing, who ultimately makes the choice? Who will have to yield, the bureaucracy and regulations or the health care provider? Don't say there won't be conflicts, because there certainly will be.

What has Obama said about this?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Craig234

Obama gets on TV and this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and yet you cannot tell me for a fact what will be covered or not. A group of people dedicated to the task of promoting an agenda for which they have either no specifics, or aren't sharing them want to know who doesn't agree with the smoke and mirror show we've seen so far. Now apparently when the government does this and it's a Democrat, then they are above suspicion. Not in my mind, and many others. We aren't partisans. We need to be shown, not take things on faith because it's our party.

I disagree with your version of events. The administration is explaining its position for the people to decide.

I would like to know how an explanation, sufficient enough to make a decision, can be given without specifics

We're in the middle of a process the administration has laid out. Obama has specified some boundaries and told Congress to come up with the plan within them.

That's where we are - the plan isn't finalied, it's not as if they are asking for you to vote on the plan withotu any specifics. The industry campaign is well underway without specifics.

You and Hyabusa are both missing the point we're discussing, about the information campaign, and changing the topic to the health plan itself, demanding specifics.

I don't object to you wanting specifics here - but that's an entirely separate topic from the information war between the industry and the White House.

It's as if the topic were the insurers bribing some members of Congress, and you respond about the 'lack of specifics disclosed about the plan'. Different topic.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Freedom of speech, unless you agree with us.

It's so refreshing to see America wake up to what this bastard is doing and fighting back. The DNC even sent out a press memo about how those speaking out against congress in town hall meetings are some funded organization that should be stopped.

Fuck you. This is the people fighting against you. This is OUR COUNTRY, we own it, you work for us. Fuck you obama.

-edit-
Email sent.

Mr. President,

Although your misinformation campaign is in full swing we will stop you. Your lies are seen and the people no longer trust you. I wish to flag your propaganda and flat out lies so that the truth can be known. Your motives are understood and we don't want it. Give me Liberty, freedom and choice with my healthcare. Respond to me when you've read the bill because otherwise you are flat out wrong and the people will not put up with your lies any longer.

You mean its okay to lie and perpetrate 1/2 truths because we have the freedom to do so?

Then I guess I could hollar FIRE in a croewded theater and they couldn`t do jack shit!

Same priniciple.

It`s one thing to object to something and have good reasons why you object!!
It`s another thing to object to something and outright lie just to get people up in arms. Sort of like a few people in theses forums!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You and Hyabusa are both missing the point we're discussing, about the information campaign, and changing the topic to the health plan itself, demanding specifics.
.

ohh they aren't missing anything. They want to obfuscate the issues. its funny that those aganst the reform say they think there needs to be *some reform yet they won't bring anything to the table during the process of getting this bill together. They just want to kill it.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus people, the White House is not asking for the emails to be forwarded so they can pick you up with their Nazi stormtroopers, it is a political thing where they want to know what is being sent around so they can prepare a message to refute it.