Report all dissidents

Interesting how this Administration is suppose to be for the people but instead it's going after them for, of all things, lies. I guess there are no mirrors in the White House, Congress or the Senate, keeps them from looking in the mirror before accusing others of lying.

From "Yes, Minister", Prime Minister Hacker says it best:

Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;

The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;

The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;

The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;

The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;

And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

I think you are a "Deily Telegraph reader".

So am I.

The hypocracy and outright lies are mind boggling.

You know what's funny, well, not funny, infuriating really...is that it says:

Putting this all together...what the fuck. Granted, their wording of this sucked badly, but anyone with half a brain and an ounce of reading comprehension can see that the blog post talks about bad information, lies, etc. They're not preping to ship people off to Alaska, they're saying...in my opinion and I also had others look at it, cause i could be wrong....they're saying: lets cut through the Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, et al. bullshit.

It reminds me of something a friend wrote. I think I'm gonna pass it on.

AJ, don't put yourself down like that.

Do you always resort to childish things, or am I just the lucky one? Really, come on AD - why not try writing something constructive, like say a well reasoned refutation of what I wrote.

In a convoluted way I thought it was more of a compliment to you, but whatever.

You are correct if you are equivalent to that of a drone (half a brain and an ounce of reading comprehension) that's what you'd think this was about.  For others you'd see that this is a major scare tactic against the freedom of speech.  AJ, you should ALWAYS be worried when the gov't is wanting to collect names or people info (ie emails) of those who oppose it.

The second part is the Obama administration hasn't been truthful with American's since his presidency.  Don't you find it ironic that anyone who opposes this bill are spreading lies and disinformation?

AJ, If that is what you see then you are missing the disinformation. President Obama is talking about health insurance reform. What the Congress is writing is something completely different., universal health care. The reforms that the president is talking about are not in the bill that the Congress is writing. This means that either the president is misleading us or he is unaware or what the Congress is doing. I posted what the President promises for insurance reform and none of it is in the congressional healthcare bill.

This is from the White House website on health insurance reform.

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions,

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill

No Gender Discrimination

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage

Extended Coverage for Young Adults

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal

The Congressional healthcare bill is written in such a way that insurance companies will be forced out of business because if there is any change in your coverage you must take the government’s healthcare plan. Eventually there will be no one left or so few people left that health insurance will die on the vine from lack of participants. The government will be left as the sole provider and the potential danger of the government to change the rules and force you to do what they think is best for you become more and more real. If you smoke you can’t be treated because it is a health risk that costs more money. Too much salt in your diet is bad for you so you won’t get treatment. If you drink and need a liver transplant you must be alcohol free for 6 months. So if you have 3 months to live sorry we can’t help you. I think it was last week when that happened in the UK where a man died because he had 3 months to live when the found out he had liver cancer he could not live the 6 months free of alcohol so he died.

There is a mixed message here. one coming from the President and one from the Congress. The Congress writes the laws and people are afraid. While the president is talking about reform of insurance that will be put out of business in 20 years through attrition giving he President what he campaigned on. A single payer system government run healthcare.

In Obama's own words he wants Single payer (i.e. government pays).

Granted, any government should be approached with a reasonable amount of skepticism and concern, but so should any paranoia.

Socialist state? Bullshit.

Dissent Camps? Bullshit.

Orwellian Government? Bullshit.

George Bush increased the government and its like crazy - where was the paranoia and fear with that?

Yes, be cautiouis and skeptical and aware...but to jump at every shadow, come on. I mean, I read an article written (i believe) by Brad (draginol/frogboy) a week or two back, and the way he approahed the deal with health care was great. I had no problems with it. He approached it in a reasonable, critical thinking, and intelligence driven way. Not fear. Not like the media.

Well I don't take kindly to being called an idiot; I can safely say that I am not.

See, what I see going on with this is that you have two camps right now. You have the democrats in congress, and then you have Obama. I had pretty much figured from day one in 2006, when the Democrats took control, that they were going to push their own agenda and anyone and everyone can screw themselves. Then you have Obama, who I feel is a fairly reasonable and intelligent guy. He may want xyz, but the Dems in congress...well, they want 123; two totally different things.

Such is the limits of a President. He may push and advertise his agenda/platform...but ultimately only congress can pass legislation. If anything, be pissed at Congress. They're the ones driving the burning car.

while it is potentially POSSIBLE that they have horribly misworded it in such a way as to SOUND like they are collecting names...

It is a whole lot of "benefit of the doubt" (which I ran out of for this administration) to give them to assume that this is the case.

The fact is, they are asking for emails. Which gives them names... what are they gonna do with it? well so far they fired the investigator general in the sacramento case, dropped the charges against the black panthers and ACORN, funnel money to acorn, push for more "electronic voting machines" (read MIT report on those), and so on. Frankly I don't trust them, and them asking people to volunteraly send names of dissidents sends chills down my spine. And should do the same to anyone who has ever read a history book, or is old enough to have seen things first hand.

PS. It doesn't help that the nominate a supreme justice who is openly racist, insult our intelligent with sayings like we gotta spend ourselfs out of debt, lie left and right, and label anyone who is "a us army veteran, anti abortion, or anti illegal immigration" a potential domestic terrorist.

First he was trusted by republicans not conservatives. Conservatives called him a liberal and we were laughed at by other liberals because Mr. Bush was portrayed as a hard right conservative. Mr. Bush was doing what Mr. Obama is doing only at a slower pace.

It is interesting that now the president does not have massive powers while when Mr. Bush was in office all the bad things that the Congress did was blamed on him. An example would be the current financial crisis. Mr. Bush warned about it two years before it happened. He can not re-write the laws to fix it and the congressman responsible for the bad law called Mr. Bush a racist for opposing and pointing out the dangers. When the economy started to tank it was on Mr. Bush's watch so he got the blame, as Mr. Obama will frequently tell you, he inherited this mess from the previous administration. What most will not admit to is that the beginning of this mess was started with President Carter, then added to by President Clinton. Both signed those bad laws that the Congress wrote.

It is clear you are taking these statements out of contex. No one would really mean those words and don't forget that it is the left that said them and they are never racist, bigoted, or hateful as a group.

Still, where was the fear and paranoia? If big gov't under Obama is just as bad and drives paranoia/fear....then it's the same with Bush. Right?

The president shouldn't have massive powers, because it ultimately weakens/destroys the balance of powers and is - so far as i know - unconstitutional. I don't know where you're getting at my agreeing with massive presidential powers.  I'm assuming it's because you commonly and erroneously are throwing me into one big pot so to speak.

Bush warned us about it? Yet why did he push for budgets that were big?

I find it interesting that you didn't mention a single Republican. Bias perhaps?

Oh, there were Republicans who failed their responsibilities, too, make no mistake.  They just weren't in charge anymore after the 2006 elections.

I've a question, anyone can answer it's not person specific: What, if any, is the difference between the Patriot Act tapping lines and checking emails, versus the claim made toward Obama?

You see no difference between foreign terrorists (& their domestic allies) and citizens with differing political views?  Are you really that dense?

I'm not dense, and yes there is a difference. I am saying, however, that Bush and his crew  (heck, possibly even Clinton, Bush Sr, et al.) knew about and went WAY beyond just posting a blog. They went beyond their powers, and yet Obama hasn't even come close to what they did - yet people are already bashing him and calling him a dictator. Seriously? We don't know if he is going to start eaves dropping and all. Granted, he fucked up with the blog post, but....is there undeniable proof that he's going to round people up, etc?

No, just fear of what could be.

As for Obama being an evil socialist...if Obama is a socialist, what was Bush? Or are these ruinous economic practices not acceptable only if the administration practicing them is not Republican, otherwise they're okay? I just don't get it. Hell, when people questioned the out of control spending of the last administration they were called unAmerican. What changed in six months?

It's the rush to hypocrisy and fear/paranoia that bothers me the most in all this. Spend a little time on any of those tea party sites, read all the info, and some it is very good, very pointed and important, and then ask yourself this: Where were these people while the previous administration grew the size of government,  built the largest federal government in history, ran up a ridiculously high deficit and wrecked the national economy? People (right wing) often gave Bush the benefit of the doubt and claimed that we should "give him a chance." Where's Obama's?

Really, lets get beyond the fear and paranoia and get back to good, old fashioned reason and intellect.

~A

Are you being sarcastic?

Straw man.  Re-focus on now, on current reality.  Many were highly critical of growing the government, even then.  They were there then.  And opposed to running up a deficit.  Childish oversimplification and overgeneralization is not an argument.

I agree with daiwa, its a strawman argument.

People who had legitimate issues with the last administration, have the same concernts with the current one.

People who are just being partisan idolized either bush or obama (although the blame mostly lies with CONGRESS...)

Because there is no balance with Mr. Obama. The Legislature is controlled by the same party that is in the White House. The last time Republicans had control of both the Legislature and the White House was for 2 years under President Reagan. The liberals screamed that his budget over ten years would cost the nation one trillion dollars and that was too much for any nation to take. Our grandchildren would be paying it off. Well, in reality we had almost 20 years of prosperous growth. The liberals took power back and wrote some laws and we went into a fiscal tailspin. It is not paranoia when you have seen this before and going down this road again you see the signs of disaster. The disturbing thing is that we are asked to report people that disagree with what our government is doing. Yet Senator Clinton screamed that it was our duty to do this when Mr. Bush was in office. Suddenly it is wrong to do it now. All President Bush asked of us was to report people that seemed suspicious in regards to terrorism to help safeguard the nation during a time of war. While President Obama is asking us to turn in people because that disagree with him. That smacks of the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and a host of other bad groups. It is not paranoia, or fear mongering, it is pointing out that what our elected leader is doing is wrong. Had one of the front groups done this I would not care but it is the full power and weight of the government that is asking for this information. What will they do with it? We don't know because they never said. Why does our current government worry about people saying what they think and believe? When Mr. Bush was in office the loony left (as opposed to the left) screamed that our president was a fascist, a Nazi, a rebirth of Hitler and that was free speech and okay. Now it is almost treason to disagree. AJ, that does not worry you? Your elected leader wants to collect names of people that disagree with what he is doing.

Look carefully, I never said YOU, did not even use the work you. I was pointing out what has been said when Mr. Bush was in office and the difference when Mr. Obama is doing the same thing.

If that is what you believe then you have misread me and many here on JU.

The DHS was demanded by the democrat lawmakers. The large budgets happened because we are fighting a war that will last at least 50 years, longer with the current president in charge. Oh, one other thing, according to the constitution the Congress writes the budget and the President can only veto or sign it. The President sends his budget to the Congress they write it into a law and the President has only two choices. If the President had a line item veto then you can blame the big budgets on him. Yes, if Mr. Bush were a conservative he would have vetoed the big budgets and shut down the government until he got one that was smaller but he did not for political reasons. He shares the blame.

Right where they are now, only back then we were in a war and wanted to win that first. With the current administration we see no movement to win the war, the money is going to things that are not in the constitution for the government to spend, and instead of a trillion and a half dollars we are looking at 12 to 16 trillion dollars in spending and every week we hear they want to spend more money we don't have. Mr. Ford loaned Chrysler two billion dollars, and it was paid back. Mr. Obama took over GM and Chrysler. The difference is that now the federal government owns a private industry. That is not in the constitution.

The economy was wrecked when the Congress passed a law ordering the banks to loan money to people that could not pay it back. This inflated home prices because everyone could buy a home so price did not matter. When the bubble burst the banks were promised by the Congress that it would back the bad loans with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Govenment. When the banks said it is time to keep your word the Congress said the banks were greedy and mismanaged. Instead of backing the hundreds of billions of bad loans they chose to spend two trillion dollars to save the economy. That did not work so they want to spend another 10 trillion dollars to save the economy. Still the banks are hurt, the economy is wrecked, and people are being foreclosed upon. Nothing was fixed and it only got worse.

It is astonishing to me that anyone would think [email protected] was a good idea.  Even more astonishing that the nitwit who dreamed it up hasn't been fired.  I guess BO couldn't disown him (or her) any more than he could disown his own mother.

or maybe BO himself had something to do with it? occam's razor. Every single member of his administration is doing something like that, from labeling veterans potential terrorists, to asking people to report dissidents, to dropping charges and investigation against acorn and black panthers, to him personally firing the investigator general who complained about the backroom deal with the mayor of sacramento (he returns HALF The money he embezzled). To appointing a racist supreme court judge...

The only common thread is that all of those link back to obama himself. Either he is extremely trusting of some very specific bad people who tell him what to do as puppet masters. Or he himself is corrupt.

I wonder if I was reported yet...

You know it was pointed out on Rush Limbaugh today that all White House documents must be kept for years after he leaves office. He does not need a list all he needs to do is search the archives to get us if we are reported.