Is it 2009 or 1984? Big Brother is alive and well.?
How's this for behavior that ought to scare the crap out of any thinking person? The White House is now asking people to report those that would express a different opinion, to a White House site that collects data on such people. Since this is a clear violation of the law, which prohibits the government from collecting information on those exercising their Constitutional rights, how do those of you who defend this man explain this behavior? Do you approve of this Orwellian tactic?
2009-08-07T09:39:07Z
Check the facts, those in denial - this is from the official White House site:
I am new here. Somebody please help me understand who I am chatting with please. Is Wounded Duck ALWAYS dense, or is WD normally an intelligent individual who just does not understand the concepts of propaganda, Constitutionality and freedom?
I will guess there are some less-than-aware individuals reading these posts and so attempt to amplify understanding. I realize I will likely be chastised by nutjobs who prefer lies over truth; I just don't care.
1. Propaganda is the government-sponsored spreading of information that the leaders in power wish for people to believe. It is typical of dictatorships and especially communist governments. It is the lifeblood or oriental communism (Korea & red China). Propaganda is NOT a viable tool of elected officials. By their very nature, representatives of the people are chosen by the people to represent their interests. It is NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY of elected officials to attempt to manipulate public opinion through the use of propaganda. Incidentally, propaganda must be at least partially true to have a chance of success.
2. Collection of data on private citizens is also a touchy subject in democracies. Dictatorships and communist governments collect information on the identities of private speaker so that they may seize speakers that disagree with their policies or practices. In democracies, it is permissible to keep records of the actions and words of public figures, to include media personnel, to assist in making an effective media management program and to identify the probable positions public figures might take on an issue.
Much legislation and litigation has been accumulated on this matter. Private communications of private citizens are private; they should not be accumulated by public officials for any purpose. Federal law limits the records that may be collected by various agencies. Inside the USA, only the FBI may maintain records on private individuals (US citizens within the borders of the USA). Those records may only be collected under certain circumstances and may only be held for certain durations. Generally, this is only done in matters of national security and national-level criminal activity. These records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
3. Wiretapping telephones is no worse and no better than "wiretapping" the internet. It is permissible for monitoring non-US citizens and for monitoring groups of threatening persons (terrorist organizations and their support networks mostly). An increase in wiretapping in the wake of the absolute failure of domestic intelligence prior to 9/11 is mandatory. It is idiotic not to expect an increase in telephonic and computer-based communications monitoring, regardless of who is in office. I would support either Bush in this matter as well as either of the Clintons. I cannot support a man who refuses to prove his eligibility for public office (birth certificate) and who has nearly no experience in national government, zero experience in defense, zero military experience and zero experience in matters of law enforcement, security and counterterrorism efforts. The relevance of the wiretapping mention is purely in the form of a logic error (poisoning the well).
I agree that both wiretapping and a "snitch" website (if that's really what it is, which I doubt) are both wrong. There is a difference however. Wiretapping is done in secret by people being paid by the government, while the white house blog can be read by every person with Internet access and depends on information sent in by ordinary citizens.
It seems a bit odd for someone interesting in spying on people to let the whole country know he's doing it, and to rely on those who may or may not support him to supply the info.
IF this is for real - it does seem like a major misstep. It could be mostly spin. Asking people to send in circulating lies so the gov't knows what it is fighting seems like a good idea. But turning in your neighbors for dissent seems very, very wrong.
I don't really believe the gov't wanted you to turn people in. I do think a lot of this is spin. There are lots of lies and misrepresentations being spread around about health insurance reform.
This - as it is being portrayed on YA - seems very, very wrong. I don't think the situation is quite the way it is portrayed on YA though. We know a lot of lying and misrepresentation goes on in here.
I won't be turning anybody in - and I am not sure that is the goal, either.
The Whitehouse wants emails that have "disinformation" in them forwarded to them. They don't want just the content, they want the addresses so they can "correct" that misinformation. For those that are saying "GWB did it with the Patriot act" there is a BIG difference from what GWB did (Which Obama is allowing to continue, but that's a different subject) and what Obama is doing and if you can't see that they are both wrong I pity you. Obama is quickly overstepping his authority.
And seriously, this may be the dumbest lunatic fringe talking point yet. They decry the idea that the White House may be collecting information on people and yet they loudly claimed that it was OK for the Bush Administration to spy on people at their discretion as a means of thwarting terrorism. WHICH IS IT?