During the Obamacare debate the president called for snitches to report in on alleged misinformation to [email protected]. He has established a creepy new snitching effort called Attack Watch. Victor Davis Hanson explains the creepiness of this effort:


Obama's New Maiestas (http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Obama-s-New-Maiestas)
Victor Davis Hanson · 5 hours ago

There are a lot of disturbing—and ironic—things about the new Obama effort (AttackWatch.com (http://attackwatch.com/)) to monitor, hunt down, and attack its critics. It used to be a classically liberal idea that conservatives and liberals would debate policies, put their views out, and let the public decide the validity of their positions. Supposedly disinterested newspapers would occasionally weigh in on disingenuous or especially egregious transgressions of good manners and basic professionalism

At certain times—so the liberal narrative went—this notion of an arena of ideas was perverted by the paranoid and vindictive right-wingers, like a Joe McCarthy shaking papers “with the names of known communists”, or Richard Nixon with his enemies lists.

Yet go onto the new ("Paid for by Obama for America") AttackWatch.com website. It reads and looks like some sort of Stasi file (“file” is their vocabulary, not mine). It asks readers to inform them of criticism of Obama. The format is, I guess by intent, supposed to resemble a government intelligence dossier ("Attack files"), with its blaring black and red headers: "Attack" /"Attackers" (followed by names and pictures of the supposed bad guys)/"Attack Type" /("public statements") followed by check off boxes like “Have your seen or heard this attack?" "Yes/No". It reminds me of living in 1973 dictatorial Greece, when we all kept silent about the Colonels upon entering the apartment building, lest the government-paid concierge write something down not nice in her black book.

Apparently no one in the administration learned from the spooky tone of the now defunct Journolist. That obtuseness begs the question, what is it with these extra-journalistic efforts to intimidate critics, as if the 2012 campaign will be based around deterrence: e.g. as if: “Beware: if you criticize Barack Obama, your name and picture will appear on our "Attack File". We are watching you, so you watch out!"

So creepier still is the request to snoop around and collect evidence for what the Roman emperors and French monarchs used to call maiestas (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romelaw/g/070819-Maiestas.htm)/Lèse-majesté—supposed crimes against the head of state, by circulating criticism of his authority that might lessen his proper sense of majesty. Indeed, on AttackWatch.com there is a special pop-up window that is reminiscent of Crimestoppers.com that supposedly will help form some sort of a clearing house: "Your email"/"content of attack or link"/"Attack type", "Attach" with a link "Report" that pops up yet another window.

This is yet another disturbing symptom of Obama’s current malady: Near 40% approval polls; widespread terror of 2012 Democratic candidates that Obama may bring them down in the fashion of the 2010 tsunami (cf. the wipeouts in the Nevada and New York special elections); leftwing columnists scapegoating Obama in hopes that they can blame the public rejection of their own statist agenda on a supposedly inept messenger.

I predict AttackWatch.com will fail and go the way of Journolist. It is contrary to the American tradition of unfettered free speech to post, in psychodramatic style, names and pictures as if they were criminals for speaking out against the head of state. The request for millions of spies to report such incorrect discourse will offend rather than inspire. As in the case of the 2008 Obama rejection of public campaign financing funds, it is hypocritical; and also antithetical to the supposed liberal tradition of tolerance and free expression without worry of intimidation.

I also predict in the following weeks we will see a lot of pushback from even the liberal media that will seek to disassociate itself from AttackWatch.com—lest the names and pictures of themselves start showing up on it.

When did liberals become such enemies of free speech?

P.S. I joined so I could snitch on the snitches.

This is looking more like Nazi Germany and Stalin Russia every day with this type of stuff. Obama apparently is taking lessons from these dead dictators who refused to have anyone say anything disparaging about "dear Leader" or they were sent to concentration camps or Siberian gulags.

Thank goodness those days are over, or ARE they?

Where is this speech calling for snitches?

All I see is a site that puts forth what this group thinks are political lies from the media (much of which is online drivel written by tinfoil hats), and it asks for them so they can reply, not go out with truncheons. Gimme a break. Alarmist.

I can't see how 'rumors' are a 'reportable attack'. With their form, it would seem to encourage people to report a private citizen repeating a 'rumor' since most 'rumors' would already be covered under the other forms such as radio/tv ad, website/blog, forwarded email, etc.

Hello Steve:

One of attributes of the surveillance state that YOU SUPPORT, is getting neighbor to snitch upon neighbor... I've said MANY times on these pages, that if you don't GUARD the rights of your antagonists, yours will soon disappear.

I remember you were outraged that the cops would come into your home WITHOUT a warrant. Now, you're worried about government snitches... But, the NSA listening to your phone calls, and reading your emails is just hunky dory with you..

You want it BOTH ways - a TYPICAL right wing position.

excon

Where is this speech calling for snitches?

All I see is a site that puts forth what this group thinks are political lies from the media (much of which is online drivel written by tinfoil hats), and it asks for them so they can reply, not go out with truncheons. Gimme a break. Alarmist.

Hello joypulv, I don't believe we've met.

I'm no alarmist, but when the president of the United States calls for citizen snitches to report to him at an official White House address that's creepy. This president has proven by his behavior time and again that he is no friend of free speech and dissent is something to be suppressed, not embraced. And if something goes bad avoid taking responsibility, blame Bush (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-blame-bush-obama-officials/story?id=14513389).

Oh, and he leaves the truncheon-wielding to his union thugs.

Hello Steve:

One of attributes of the surveillance state that YOU SUPPORT, is getting neighbor to snitch upon neighbor...

Who doesn't report suspicious activity in your neighborhood? You? If I see some guy snooping around my home or my neighbors you're darn right I'm going to report it, that's what a good neighbor does. If I smell funky stuff coming from a house across the street and people running in and out at all hours I'll report it, I don't want someone's meth lab to blow up on my block do you? No that's right, you just want it legalized.


I remember you were outraged that the cops would come into your home WITHOUT a warrant. Now, you're worried about government snitches... But, the NSA listening to your phone calls, and reading your emails is just hunky dory with you..

Yep, if you were chatting with terrorists overseas I'd certainly hope they caught it.


You want it BOTH ways - a TYPICAL right wing position.

I want a reasonable balance, it is part of the government's job to protect our lives. It's not part of their job to suppress free speech.

Where is this speech calling for snitches?

All I see is a site that puts forth what this group thinks are political lies from the media (much of which is online drivel written by tinfoil hats), and it asks for them so they can reply, not go out with truncheons. Gimme a break. Alarmist.

Stop being the voice of reason! You'll make their heads explode! LOL!

Yep, if you were chatting with terrorists overseas I'd certainly hope they caught it.Hello again, Steve:

For a right winger, you should do TRUST the government... Makes no sense to me.

excon

Hey NeedKarma thanks but I see at least two other voices of reason here.

Nothing about any of this is new in history. Before the internet, politicians had staff and volunteers do newspaper and magazine clipping and take notes on TV, radio, and live speeches so that they could quote and bash them in THEIR speeches. Heck, it probably goes back to Nero and Ghengis Khan. Well maybe not Khan.

Hello again, Steve:

For a right winger, you should do TRUST the government... Makes no sense to me

Dude, you trust them with my healthcare, and that makes no sense to me either.

Don't worry Speech and Tom I already reported you two. They will be showing up to your doors on the Sundays we play each other in fantasy football. You have been warned!

Hey NeedKarma thanks but I see at least two other voices of reason here.

Nothing about any of this is new in history. Before the internet, politicians had staff and volunteers do newspaper and magazine clipping and take notes on TV, radio, and live speeches so that they could quote and bash them in THEIR speeches. Heck, it probably goes back to Nero and Ghengis Khan. Well maybe not Khan.

If this had been the Bush administration doing this the tone would be much different. The left would be crying foul and holding their breath until they turned blue, but since it's Obama they fall in line like good little soldiers.

But hey, it is good entertainment as well because in addition to being creepy, it makes him the butt of many jokes (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214099/20110914/attack-watch-attackwatch-com-president-barack-obama-gatekeeping-web-site.htm).


@thorninaz: "#attackwatch I saw someone purposely squeeze the Charmin in the grocery store."

@Libertarian_ish: "Every time a TSA Agent gives your privates a "high five" an #attackwatch angel of death is born!"

@JoeNYLaw: "Dear #attackwatch: After we turn in our children for thinking illegal thoughts about our Dear Leader, can we say Hi to Minister Goebells?"

@BradThor: "If only the #Obama administration could create an atmosphere where jobs materialized as quickly as #attackwatch jokes!"

Don't worry Speech and Tom I already reported you two. They will be showing up to your doors on the Sundays we play each other in fantasy football. You have been warned!

That's what it's going to take because my team is invincible. By the way, next time you get a good coach's speech put it on our message board.

That's what it's gonna take because my team is invincible.Hello Steve;

Come Monday morning, I'm going to be feasting on creamed doughnuts.

excon

Hello Steve;

Come Monday morning, I'm gonna be feasting on creamed doughnuts.

excon

Yeah and you thought you were going have a cheeseburger this year, too. How's that workin' for you?

The President needs all the help he can get. Just yesterday he was crying to a college crowd... "If you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill!”
That of course would be the non-bill that hasn't been filed in Congress yet. That would be the bill that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has already indicated he wouldn't bring up for a vote.

Not that I blame him. He has 20 something members of his caucus up for re-election next year. The last thing they want to own is another stimulus boon doggle .

Yeah report me!! I encourage eveyone to report my posts to AttackWatch . What better way to bring exposure to AMHD!!

Yep, report my posts too!

I signed up yesterday and still haven't received anything. They're either on to me or ignoring me because I didn't donate. I'm guessing the latter.

At least one prominent liberal is being honest (http://twitter.com/#!/chrislhayes/status/114006798318567425) about this, Editor of The Nation and MSNBC weekend host Christopher Hayes.


If I'm honest w/ myself, I probably would have gone apesh*t (fairly or unfairly) if George W Bush had launched something like #attackwatch

Told you so.

Of course Bush had Fox News on his side.

Anyway if you haven't done anything wrong they you have nothing to worry about, it won't affect you.

Bush didn't need a website like this because no one was spreading rumors. All the nasty Ish he was doing was true. Like the post from smoothy about all the late night talk show guys making jokes about Obama non of them were real. No one said any of them. The tea baggers just send these BS emails around that have no truth what so ever.

But I do find it funny that the tea baggers freaked out over death panels then at the debate they became the death panels let people without insurance die is what they want. I'm sure Jesus would do the same thing.

Of course Bush had Fox News on his side.

The 3 legacy networks alone have 6.62 times more viewers of their evening news than Fox' biggest draw. And again, that's not counting CNN, MSNBC, HNN and the print media. Obama has a much, much larger news network in his corner than Bush ever did.


Anyway if you haven't done anything wrong they you have nothing to worry about, it won't affect you.

I said creepy, nothing abut being worried. This silly effort of his only invites more criticism and I'm certain he's going to get what he deserves in return.

Bush didn't need a website like this because no one was spreading rumors. All the nasty Ish he was doing was true. Like the post from smoothy about all the late night talk show guys making jokes about Obama non of them were real. No one said any of them. The tea baggers just send these BS emails around that have no truth what so ever.

Hate to tell you but your next sentence is exactly what you just criticized.

"But I do find it funny that the tea baggers freaked out over death panels then at the debate they became the death panels let people without insurance die is what they want. "

No one on this side of the aisle is pushing granny over the cliff.

because no one was spreading rumors.

Lol...
The 9/11 Truth Movement - 911truth.org (http://www.911truth.org/)


Electronic Voting The stolen election of 2004 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html)

How Jeb Bush Stole the 2000 Election for His Brother (http://www.diggers.org/freecitynews/_disc1/0000001e.htm)

Untitled Document (http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm)

Bush Postpones 2008 Election | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/bush-postpones-2008-election)

... nope none at all .

There you go tom, set up a website and debunk them!

lol ....
The 9/11 Truth Movement - 911truth.org (http://www.911truth.org/)


Electronic Voting The stolen election of 2004 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI411B.html)

That was a big one... more than once

Bush administration takes steps to cancel US election (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/elec-j13.shtml)

Will Bush Cancel the Election? (http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2004/cancel_election.html)

Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election? (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2874)

Could Bush Cancel the Election? (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/12/could_bush_cancel_the_election)

Congressman John Olver Believes Bush Will Cancel 2008 Elections, Still Refuses to Support Impeaching Him or Cheney (http://warisacrime.org/node/24358)

Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel ("Postpone") the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks! (http://buzzflash.com/analysis/04/07/ana04012.html)

Evidence That Bush Will Cancel Elections & Declare Martial Law (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/05/evidence-that-bush-will-cancel.html)

My favorite has always been Theocracywatch, but I bet they've turned their attention to those Dominionists running now.

That was a big one... more than once

Bush administration takes steps to cancel US election (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jul2004/elec-j13.shtml)

Will Bush Cancel the Election? (http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2004/cancel_election.html)

Will Bush Cancel The 2008 Election? (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2874)

Could Bush Cancel the Election? (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/7/12/could_bush_cancel_the_election)

Congressman John Olver Believes Bush Will Cancel 2008 Elections, Still Refuses to Support Impeaching Him or Cheney (http://warisacrime.org/node/24358)

Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel ("Postpone") the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks! (http://buzzflash.com/analysis/04/07/ana04012.html)

Evidence That Bush Will Cancel Elections & Declare Martial Law (http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/05/evidence-that-bush-will-cancel.html)

My favorite has always been Theocracywatch, but I bet they've turned their attention to those Dominionists running now.
Where's the disinformation there?

From one of your articles:


The article reported that the Bush-appointed chair of the Election Assistance Commission, DeForest B. Soaries, sent letters in late April to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to raise the possibility of a terror attack occurring at election time. (The Sept. 11, 2001 attack fell on Election Day in New York City.)

Newsweek magazine reported Soaries wanted Ridge to request that Congress pass legislation authorizing Ridge's agency to re-schedule elections.

Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that developing such plans was a necessary contingency effort in response to "doomsday scenarios,"

I believe the word tom and I addressed was "rumors". The article you cite (http://www.now.org/nnt/fall-2004/cancel_election.html) calls it a rumor in the first sentence.

"Canceling or postponing the Nov. 2 presidential election may sound like ultimate paranoia, but the rumor floating around..."

Rumors, see? Thank you for trying.

Yea rumors exist, I don't deny that. That's not what the website is about, it's about correcting the planned misinformation sent out by the republicans.

You really had to reach deep to find examples, articles that contain the word regardless of their content. Hehe.

NK, it is set up for more than the 'planned' misinformation.

I read their form for reporting 'attacks'. They have a drop down menu that includes 'rumors' as one of the ways to hear about misinformation/attacks. They list emails, radio ads, TV ads, websites/blogs, and other forms of media separately. So, obviously, AttackWatch believes they should be reported along with all other forms whether they are in 'articles' or not.

If they aren't in articles, then where else do you hear 'rumors'?

I agree, rumors is pretty vague and should probably be omitted from that. In that article we were speaking of the rumor was confirmed by the Republican member so it was all dealt with in the same article.

Yea rumors exist, I don't deny that. That's not what the website is about, it's about correcting the planned misinformation sent out by the republicans.

You really had to reach deep to find examples, articles that contain the word regardless of their content. Hehe.

Dude, just admit when you're wrong instead of constantly moving the goal posts to C Y A.

Yeah report me !!! I encourage eveyone to report my posts to AttackWatch . What better way to bring exposure to AMHD !!!!


Hi Tom,

There is a big difference between you and others who create left and right wing websites just to post ridiculous drivel and then meld into the background and watch the nonsense spread. They do this under the guise of free speech. All freedom and no responsibility?

In other words, you have demonstrated that your are a person who is prepared to take responsibility for his political comments. Very important in my view.

Attack Watch seems to be a belated attempt to make people take responsibility for their comments rather than an attempt to keep 'files' on 'dissidents'

Probably not the right way to go about it, but it is at least an attempt.

Tut

Tut, point taken but with Obama it is not about making others take responsibility. He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent, he can't take the heat. If you haven't noticed, in his world there is one way, his. I'll be glad to tell him he's wrong and take responsibility for it.

Tut, point taken but with Obama it is not about making others take responsibility. He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent, he can't take the heat. If you haven't noticed, in his world there is one way, his. I'll be glad to tell him he's wrong and take responsibility for it.


Hi Speechless,

I don't Know that much about your politico/legal system and how Obama fits in. On that basis I am happy to go along with your observations.

The only point I would make is that despite my lack of knowledge of American politics I would be very confident in the ability of 'systems' to deal with ambitions politicians. In the end Obama may well not tolerate dissent, but I would be confident that in the final analysis there is nothing he can do about it.

Not sure who said this but," you have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Tut

He has shown time and again he doesn't tolerate dissent
Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions.

In the end Obama may well not tolerate dissent, but I would be confident that in the final analysis there is nothing he can do about it.

Not sure who said this but," you have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Tut

No, the people will not surrender their right to criticize our government, I can assure you of that. And that was Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that.

Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions.

That was in the OP, first line. See, if you'd just read the first sentences you wouldn't be wrong so much.

That was in the OP, first line. How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent? I don't understand.

How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent? I don't understand.

You don't understand because that's not what you asked for. You said: "Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you. Please use facts not emotions."

He asked for citizen snitches to report back to him at an official White House address. Who has done that before?

As to this question of how other presidents have tolerated dissent, when did George W. Bush fight back against the relentless hostility toward him and the ridiculous assertions like he hates black people or his policies were responsible for earthquakes? He didn't. In fact, when Tim Russert grilled him on his National Guard service he replied, “It’s fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do."

He had respect for dissent, Obama does not.

Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I'll agree with you.
Hey look what Bush tried to do:
Operation TIPS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_TIPS)

a domestic intelligence-gathering program designed by President George W. Bush to have United States citizens report suspicious activity. The program's website implied that US workers who had access to private citizens' homes, such as cable installers and telephone repair workers, would be reporting on what was in people's homes if it were deemed "suspicious."

It came under intense scrutiny in July 2002 when the Washington Post alleged in an editorial that the program was vaguely defined, and investigative political journalist Ritt Goldstein observed in Australia's Sydney Morning Herald [1] that TIPS would provide America with a higher percentage of 'citizen spies' than the former East Germany had under the notorious Stasi secret police. Goldstein later observed that he broke news of Operation TIPS on March 10 in Spain's second largest daily, El Mundo,[2] but that he struggled until July before finding a major English language paper which would print the story.

You don't understand because that's not what you asked for. Sure it is, refer to my initial post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-regime-getting-creepier-597281-4.html#post2893250



As to this question of how other presidents have tolerated dissent, when did George W. Bush fight back against the relentless hostility toward him and the ridiculous assertions like he hates black people or his policies were responsible for earthquakes? He didn't.
Actually when someone dared confront him on issues he fired them, such as Scott McClellan.

Sure it is, refer to my initial post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-regime-getting-creepier-597281-4.html#post2893250

Do you just not pay any attention? I just quoted that post exactly. "Show me what he has done differently than any other president and I;'ll agree with you" and "How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent?" are completely different subjects. I answered what you asked for, gave you the proof, and I'm waiting for you to agree with me as you promised. Are you not a man of your word?

[QUOTE]Actually when someone dared confront him on issues he fired them, such as Scott McClellan.

McClellan resigned (How does that show that other presidents have tolerated dissent?), he was not fired.


McClellan: ‘I have given it my all’
Appearing with Bush on the South Lawn, McClellan, who has parried especially fiercely with reporters on Iraq and on intelligence issues, told Bush: “I have given it my all sir and I have given you my all sir, and I will continue to do so as we transition to a new press secretary.”

Bush said McClellan had “a challenging assignment.” Video: Matalin discusses changes

“I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity,” the president said. “It’s going to be hard to replace Scott, but nevertheless he made the decision and I accepted it. One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas and talking about the good old days.”

You should take your own advice and answer on facts, not emotions.

I see you've never worked in a corporate environment. People are asked to resign.

And you skating around the whole issue of me asking you what Obama done differently that other president as far as tolerating dissent is tiring. I just solved a difficult puzzle geocache and I'm off to get it now then I'm to cycle for charity as a "local celebrity". Have fun manufacturing outrage!

If McClellan was asked to resign it had to do with his general level of incompetence. You will recall he was vilified by the left until he became a butt boy on MSNBC for Olbermann .He did a poor job as the Presidents Press Sec

I see you've never worked in a corporate environment. People are asked to resign.

And you skating around the whole issue of me asking you what Obama done differently that other president as far as tolerating dissent is tiring. I just solved a difficult puzzle geocache and I'm off to get it now then I'm to cycle for charity as a "local celebrity". Have fun manufacturing outrage!

I see a couple of things, you refuse to keep your promise to agree if I showed what Obama has done differently which indicates you're not a man of your word, you don't know the difference between resigning and being fired, and you can't seem to figure out why someone would respond to what you actually said, not what you didn't say. I can't read your mind, dude, and I answered BOTH concerns (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/obama-regime-getting-creepier-597281-5.html#post2893318) anyway. So please, you have no room to speak of others skating around issues.

P.S. I've worked for the same corporation for 18 years, so please, enough of the asinine assumptions. Stick to the facts, remember?

If McClellan was asked to resign it had to do with his general level of incompetence. You will recall he was vilified by the left until he became a butt boy on MSNBC for Olbermann .He did a poor job as the Presidents Press Sec
Yes, I'm so sure it had nothing to do with McClellan's criticism of Bush, dissention if you will... oh wait it was: Scott McClellan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McClellan#Memoir_and_criticism_of_Bush_admin istration)

McClellan resigned on April 19, 2006, he criticized Bush in his book in 2008. I'm sure Bush fired him for what he said in his book 2 years later.

Facts man, stick to the facts.

Yawn... a disgruntled former employee writes a hit piece that makes him some money on the left talk show circuit.

I see a couple of things, you refuse to keep your promise to agree if I showed what Obama has done differently
But I showed that he hasn't done anything different than other presidents. Bush gets people to leave or he'll even send the secret service to your house to threaten you (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/elderly-mans-letter-to-the-editor-prompts-secret-service-visit).

We could keep going back a president at a time and show how they handle dissent. But here's the thing you don't get - that site isn't about dealing with dissenters - that's a right-wing talking point that YOU started. The site is designed to correct disinformation. When someone reports an item a correction gets posted on the site. Why are you so threatened by that?

And if you didn't know that people in high positions get given the opportunity to resign when a higher up dismisses them then you're at a lower level than I thought.

McClellan resigned on April 19, 2006, he criticized Bush in his book in 2008. I'm sure Bush fired him for what he said in his book 2 years later.

Facts man, stick to the facts.
My god you're right. He must have been totally in lockstep with Bush while he was there and only came to his senses afterwards!

Speaking of Obama and facts, it's being alleged that in addition to the coziness with Solyndra and their half a billion dollar failure, the most transparent regime ever pressured a four star general to change his testimony (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/15/lightsquared-did-white-house-pressure-general-shelton-to-help-donor.html) to be more favorable to a Democrat donor.

But I showed that he hasn't done anything different than other presidents.

TIPS? I've already addressed the idea of reporting suspicious activity with excon. It happens every day, people report activity that may be criminal. Never heard of Crimestoppers?

It's a totally different subject than a president asking citizens to rat out people for exercising their first amendment right to free speech, or sending union goons out to intimidate citizens for doing the same. I'm right and I'm still waiting for you to agree as promised.



Bush gets people to leave or he'll even send the secret service to your house to threaten you (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/elderly-mans-letter-to-the-editor-prompts-secret-service-visit)

Again, do you even read your own evidence? Quote, "the U.S. Secret Service briefly worried that the 81-year-old man's words threatened President Bush."

The President does not send the Secret Service out to threaten anyone which they did not do anyway. They investigated, "They asked Tilli questions." That is their job, to prtect the president and investigate potential threats REGARDLESS of who is in office.

THREATENING and ASKING QUESTIONS are different things entirely.


We could keep going back a president at a time and show how they handle dissent. But here's the thing you don't get - that site isn't about dealing with dissenters - that's a right-wing talking point that YOU started. The site is designed to correct disinformation. When someone reports an item a correction gets posted on the site. Why are you so threatened by that?

Why do you make things up about me? I think I need to start my own Attack Watch site to correct your disinformation.


And if you didn't know that people in high positions get given the opportunity to resign when a higher up dismisses them then you're at a lower level than I thought.

I get it NK, you get so frustrated that I keep destroying your rebuttals and can't counter my facts that you feel the need to resort to insults. Kind of childish of you in my opinion.

It's a totally different subject than a president asking citizens to rat out people for exercising their first amendment right to free speech, or sending union goons out to intimidate citizens for doing the same.Wrong again. The site is asking to report disinformation so it can be corrected. No one is quashing another's right to free speech, not in the slightest.

Wrong again. The site is asking to report disinformation so it can be corrected. No one is quashing another's right to free speech, not in the slightest.

How many times do I have to point you in the right direction? Asking for citizen snitches to report to an official White House address is a chilling attack on free speech, as is rallying union thugs to go harass citizens for disagreeing with his policies. The Attack Watch site is just stupid and childish... and creepy.

It's just fodder for the next campaign, a job they used to have to pay clipping services or staff to do. And since it's interactive, it's a way to press a key and out goes a reply that provides what they think is the truth (not that I really think this is going to work; there's something a bit naïve about it what with the whole world ready to hack it). Do you REALLY think that they are going to bother with 'snitch' type submissions? 99% of which will be hacks? That might be a great way to clog their arteries if you right wingers want to waste your time.

Republicans have a much more insideous strategy for control than asking for reports. Purse strings.

No, the people will not surrender their right to criticize our government, I can assure you of that. And that was Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that.

Hi Speech,

I would never suggest anyone should give up the right to criticize government.

I knew Franklin.D. said it but I was trying to think of someone else. Francis Bacon perhaps? Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that these extreme websites are not designed to criticize governments. They are designed to instill fear in people who are gullable enough to believe the nonsense.

Their aim is not criticism, but to be mischievous. Important difference don't your think?

Tut

Why are you guys even arguing over a site that is owned by the democratic national committee? What else do you expect from those people?

Why are you guys even arguing over a site that is owned by the democratic national committee? What else do you expect from those people?

Hi Dad,

It doesn't really matter?

After months of seeing the nonsensical political drivel posted from extreme websites from the left and right I think "Attack Watch" is a great idea; both the left and right should employ it as soon as possible.

Hopefully it will weed out some of this nonsense. In other words, it should be aimed at making people who make public comment take responsibility for their comments.

And no, it wouldn't be an attack on free speech.

Tut

A quick perusal shows that is not their intent. They plan on dissecting the words of Obama's political opponents (and evidently will continue the left's obsession with the things Glenn Beck says).
The 1st 3 postings are about Rick Perry ,Mitt Romney ,and Beck. On the 'Attack Files ',the only real outrageous nonsense they address is the already debunked one that the President wasn't born in the country.

a quick perusal shows that is not their intent. They plan on dissecting the words of Obama's political opponents (and evidently will continue the left's obsession with the things Glenn Beck says).
The 1st 3 postings are about Rick Perry ,Mitt Romney ,and Beck. On the 'Attack Files ',the only real outrageous nonsense they address is the already debunked one that the President wasn't born in the country.

Hi Tom,


What is wrong with that?

Anything Glen Beck says needs to be subject to scrutiny. This is not a criticism of his character. It should be an analysis of the words he says. Does Beck take responsibility of what he says or does he fade into the background and wait to come out with another outrageous comment?

Exactly the same standard should apply to the left. Known 'nonsense' peddlers ( left and right) should be subject to scrutiny in terms of the words they say.

Why do people hide behind The First Amendment as it applies to the press? Responsibility not codified enough?

Tut

I don't care actually . I think free speech is almost absolute . I even signed up to the site ;just like I regularly visit other lefty web sites.
Beck is Beck . I don't recall anyone here using him or his words in support of their position. The President has in fact not been a strong ally to Israel. However ,I give him props for the position he is taking at the UN against the Palestinian statehood declaration,

The postings about Perry and Romney are more interesting to me . They take Perry to task for saying the stimulus created "zero jobs". Well perhaps "some " jobs were created by the stimulus so they are technically correct. However that is nitpicking and unworthy of a serious reply. The stimulus was a failure ,and the only proof one needs is that the President plans on spending another $400 billion in the attempt.
The thing on Romney is equally silly.

I don't care actually . I think free speech is almost absolute . I even signed up to the site ;just like I regularily visit other lefty web sites.

Hi again Tom,

I'm glad you said, 'almost' because there are no absolutes in my view. In this day and age most people seems to know their rights but when it comes to knowing their responsibilities extreme elements seems to plead ignorant. Strange isn't it?

As far as American domestic and foreign policy is concerned? You would be a better judge than myself.


Tut

Yeah I carefully qualified it . However tin foil hats are entertaining and pose no real threat to civil society. As cal points out there are no shortage of people willing to debunk them ,and it would be surprising if the Dem machine were actually wasting their time and effort to that pursuit.


What this is actually is a way to get their base fired up . The initial targets and subjects on the site are irrelevant to the President's re election effort.But then again ;his opening salvos are demogogic rants against Congress so perhaps they are already showing their desperation.

Hello:

It appears that the stimulus DID create jobs... But... we've got Republicanzonkerland, and then we've got realityland. (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/)If you decide stuff, you should decide it on the TRUTH. Wouldn't you agree?

excon

Hmm I never noticed before that Fact Check was an Annenberg site . So much for unbiased fact checking .

As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there's no doubt that the number is positive.


Lol simply put if there was truth in reporting unemployment figures the overall rate would be much worse. I'm glad the Dems are going to run on their record of job creating achievement. I encourage it. 3/4 trillion dollars to make less than a 2 % difference ;with most of the money temporarily forestalling larger cuts at the State level and not actually creating anything.
More pump priming mythology. BTW... assuming the 3.3 million jobs is correct ;it cost us taxpayers $212,200 per job "created "... BAM that's bang for your buck !

Even funnier... the 2008 version of this web site is still on line

Fight The Smears - Learn the Truth About Barack Obama (http://www.fightthesmears.com/)

Back then we learned the truth that Michelle doesn't abuse travel privilages .

Fight the Smears: The Truth About Michelle and the Fake Room Service Bill (http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/30/FakeReceipt.html)

We now know of course that Michelle would never stoop to abusing that privilege .
Michelle Obama accused of spending $10m in public money on vacations | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029615/Michelle-Obama-accused-spending-10m-public-money-vacations.html)

The dopes put it on twitter... I encourage everyone to go there are see the reportings :


@GlenRussum
Glen Russum @AttackWatch I need to report that Batman was seen "abusing" the Joker in a dark alley while Santa and others watched and recorded... sick!

Hey #attackwatch, remember those 6 job killing ATMs? Just saw them down at the #USDayofRage.


@Talkmaster
Neal Boortz Loving our robust Economy? NEVER forget that Obama once referred to the private sector as the "ENEMY." #attackwatchhundreds of similar examples!

yeah I carefully qualified it . However tin foil hats are entertaining and pose no real threat to civil society. As cal points out there are no shortage of people willing to debunk them ,and it would be suprising if the Dem machine were actually wasting their time and effort to that persuit.




Hi Tom,

Good point. There does seem to be plenty of scrutiny round at the moment (electronic or paper media ). Not much nonsense gets through without someone latching onto it.

Yes, tin foil hats don't pose a threat to civil society. This will only hold true so long as the middle ground doesn't slowly keep shifting to the left and the right. Do you think this is happening? I would be interested in your opinion here.

Tut

Tut
It depends on the parameters of history you are looking at. Speaking from the perspective of American history ,I find it interesting that people are surprised and alarmed at polarization .
Americans tend to romanticize the founding of the country and think the founders were of one voice and philosophy.. That is far from the case . A closer examination reveals that the roots of the debate in the country today are found in the debates the founders and early national leaders had then .

I further see that the discourse back then was not cordial . The blogs of their days were the pamphletters who published in pseudonym . (example Alexander Hamilton published under the name 'Publis' ) . It is a fact that during the 1800 campaign ,Thomas Jefferson used publications that supported him to level vicious charges against John Adams (they charged he was loyal to the British crown ) ;and Adams supporters in return made charges against Jefferson (very personal in nature about his character ) .
Political attacks like these led to the famous Aaron Burr -Alexander Hamilton duel that cost Hamilton his life.

History has shown here that some variation of the middle is in power and when it shifts one way or the other it is short term and there is push back(note that the 2010 elections were a push back to the Dems gaining control of the elected branches of government ,and their attempt to govern too far to the left).

Can one take a position on basic core beliefs and say it's straight down the middle if they have any convictions ? I have no issue at all with the concept of partisanship .
It appears to me that you shouldn't either given that your political system is designed to encourage it .

Non-partisanship to me is a bromide . Yes consensus is reached through compromise . But to cede a position before the negotiation is to succumb to the will of the opponent.

Their aim is not criticism, but to be mischievous. Important difference don't your think?

I guess I must have missed what sites you're referring to. But anyway, even that is subjective. Who defines what's "extreme"?

I guess I must have missed what sites you're referring to. But anyway, even that is subjective. Who defines what's "extreme"?

Hi Speech,

True. I guess it's all relative.

Tut

The dopes put it on twitter... I encourage everyone to go there are see the reportings :


Hey #attackwatch, remember those 6 job killing ATMs? Just saw them down at the #USDayofRage.

Hundreds of similar examples!

Speaking of the Day of Rage , whenever there's a good leftist protest, Zombie gets pictures (http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/09/18/day-of-fail-nationwide-anti-capitalist-revolution-flops/?singlepage=true) (NSFW, mature content). The poor, confused boobs. I'd have taken the guys burning dollar bills more seriously had they been lighting up Benjamins.

Those day of rage things only work when a Republican is in office. I wonder why they didn't occupy Solyndra ?

I guess Obama has been reading up on George Orwell's 1984 and thinks it's a great idea.

Its exactly the sort of thing a guy like him would do.

Well, that didn't take long. Obama has rolled out his newest incarnation of the snitch patrol by renaming his "Attack Watch" the "Truth Team (http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team)".

So watch it boys and girls, don't criticize The One or he'll send out his union thugs (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-launches-truth-team-to-respond-to-gop-atta) to break your kneecaps.


National supporters including the National Education Association (NEA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and the United Steelworkers Union (USW) will be participating in this effort.

Go ahead, report me. Please.

Do you want to be reported for the chance to see what happens?
I'm not going to do it but maybe someone you know better will oblige.
Remember Muskie crying on the steps?
Granted he wasn't a president. But he might have had a chance if his team had been on top of rumors. (Man crying = another issue.)
Your argument is that a prez isn't entitled to sweep the speakings of the nation. I see it as just the tech version of the media staff that looked for lies and dirty tricks designed to bring him down. You see it as a desire to squash dissent?
Yet the origins of a lot of what they are looking for are from the very people trying to unseat Obama and put their candidate in for the next term. So why isn't a president allowed to ask, campaign, and answer to what he feels are lies? He has a right to protect his integrity. A report site doesn't mean he gets to use the info against anyone. I don't see how it's any different from the staff of old who clipped news from papers. It might be true, it might not, it might be second hand reporting just as this is. If Obama wanted to be nefarious he wouldn't do it out in the open, he'd use all the gov't agencies at his disposal.
It's peanuts compared to the secretive stuff he could use.
Wouldn't you rather be out in the open?

No, I'd rather our thin-skinned president get over himself allow us to enjoy our first amendment rights instead of asking for snitches to smack down dissent. He could learn a thing or two from his predecessor who endured more than his "fair share" of vicious attacks but didn't let them get under his skin. So no I don't believe the president is "entitled to sweep the speakings of the nation". His job is to DEFEND our rights, not squelch them.

My point is that every president has a staff that sweeps the media, extracting his name to see what is being said. Heck, mayors and senators do it. My point is that it isn't to squash dissent, it's to respond to perceived lies. My point is that it's out in the OPEN. You claim Bush didn't do it? ****SNORT****

My point is that every president has a staff that sweeps the media, extracting his name to see what is being said. Heck, mayors and senators do it. My point is that it isn't to squash dissent, it's to respond to perceived lies. My point is that it's out in the OPEN. You claim Bush didn't do it? ****SNORT****

Mock all you want but that's not what I said. What I said was Bush didn't let it bother him, and if anyone had reason to respond to the attacks it was Bush. He was attacked relentlessly and you did not see him getting obviously irritated and developing snitch networks. This is Obama's THIRD incarnation of a snitch network and quite frankly, I find that beyond disturbing. Read Victor Davis Hanson's column in the OP, this is about more than seeing what is being said about him.

I wasn't mocking you personally. You have your finger on more political pulses than I do. I happen to feel defensive about this one for some reason.
So Obama is more open about attacks than Bush was. Bush struck me as someone who didn't even know when he was being attacked (or even when the twin towers were being attacked). He went through life being handed Yale and politics and the CIA and oil and it was easier for him to not care because someone else was always taking care of it for him.
In the larger view I see Democrats as all about being open (transparency, blah blah) and Republicans as being secretive. Republicans are secretive about everything from big banks to invisible cloaks.
For this matter at hand, it's down to open snitching vs. secretive intel gathering, sensitive president vs. couldn't care less president. The first uses the internet for free, the second used everyone from the CIA, FBI, NSA, SS, and who knows who else to gather the same info, using a lot more sophisticated means at taxpayer expense.
Snitch or intel, which is your preference?

Surely you jest about Dems being transparent. This is an administration that promised transparency then tried to codify lying (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secrets-20111031,0,273702.story). He not only wants snitches, he wants to legally lie about the existence of intel.

Surely you jest about Dems being transparent. Hello again, Steve:

Ok, enough of this ONE way crap... Obama is a LIAR.. He said he was going to be transparent, and now he's going after leaker's like they were enemy number #1...

But, you're trying to make it sound like Republicans would NEVER do such a dastardly thing... That Republicans would tell EVERYTHING...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

I've done no such thing, I merely stated that Bush was thicker skinned than the current dufus in the Oval Office. Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement.

Thick skinned resilient, or encased in armor with a perpetual lopsided grin? I'll bet they botoxed his face whenever there was a tragedy. What, we are now measuring skin? (Oh right, very important to you guys.)

This is getting OT. A website to get reports of 'attacks' IN ORDER TO OPENLY REPLY TO THEM is preferable in my book to gov't agencies that cull them in secret, by keyword searches, facial recognition, spying, or other surveillance. It's going to happen no matter how, but this way it's out in front - no one wants what we perceive to be false information flying around, not even I.

no one wants what we perceive to be false information flying around, not even I.

In that case, the president should shut up. He is the chief purveyor of false information.

Wow. So speech you deny the right of free speech to your leader

'chief purveyor of false information'
Snore.
I hear that hyperbole every admin.
I guess the topic of a new way information is gathered is being skirted now or has fizzled.

When has Obama actually NOT lied about something? And by lie... I mean misstate, misquote, or twist reality until it resembles nothing based in fact...

Wow. So speech you deny the right of free speech to your leader

??

If someone accuses me of lying all the time, I don't give them the right to demand that I provide a list of all the times I have told the truth.
The burden is on them to provide a list of lies.

All I can say is what I said before, this is a regime that wanted to codify lying. 'Nuff said.

This is getting OT. A website to get reports of 'attacks' IN ORDER TO OPENLY REPLY TO THEM is preferable in my book to gov't agencies that cull them in secret, by keyword searches, facial recognition, spying, or other surveillance. It's going to happen no matter how, but this way it's out in front - no one wants what we perceive to be false information flying around, not even I.

Do you think Obama isn't using those secretive tactics as well as the more public ones?

Have you been to the website that started this discussion? Do you really think it appropriate that a president ask everyone to 'report' rumors and where they heard them? Not just blogs, websites, news articles, or other public utterances but 'rumors' that a neighbor, friend or family member might share in the privacy of their own home. Do you want your private conversations 'reported' to Attackwatch? Would you 'report' anyone who doesn't believe in Obama the way you might?

Now, Obama wants people to 'educate' themselves so that they can 'educate' others. The problem with that is he wants them educated with his spin on the 'facts'. It is no better than anyone else before him and worse than some. However, it doesn't matter who else has tried these tactics because it doesn't excuse Obama from using them now.

None of this would be necessary if we were all properly indoctrinated at a young age

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hes-our-man-yes-we-can-shocking-obama-song-taught-to-kindergarteners-at-tx-school/

The Barack Obama Song

Who is our 44th President?
Obama is our 44th President
Who is a DC resident?
Obama is a DC resident
Resident, President

Who's favorite team is the Chicago White Sox?
Obama's favorite team is the Chicago White sox
Who really thinks outside the box?
Obama really thinks outside the box
Outside the box, Chicago White Sos
Resident, President

Who really likes to play basketball?
Obama really likes to play basketball
Who's gonna answer our every call?
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President

Who's famous slogan is Yes we can?
Obams's famous slogan is Yes we can
Who do we know is the man?
Barack Obama is the man
He's our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketvall
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Who won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Obama won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Now can you guess who's a famous author
Barack Obama is a famous author

And you didn't even get all the verses. That's just creepy and yes, taxpayers are funding Obama evangelism.

If someone accuses me of lying all the time, I don't give them the right to demand that I provide a list of all the times I have told the truth.
The burden is on them to provide a list of lies.

Except for the fact he couldn't provide a list when he ever told the truth... because it hasn't happened in his adult life yet.

Everything he's ever uttered as president has basically been a lie...

Y'all too adorable for words. Bye