Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You don't understand because that's not what you asked for.

---

Sure it is, refer to my initial post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2893250

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

[QUOTE=NeedKarma;2893325]Sure it is, refer to my initial post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#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, he was not fired.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

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 to be more favorable to a Democrat donor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Bush gets people to leave or he'll even send the secret service to your house to threaten you

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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. 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 .

Quote:

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

@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!

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

hundreds of similar examples!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

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 (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".

So watch it boys and girls, don't criticize The One or he'll send out his union thugs to break your kneecaps.

Quote:

---

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****

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joypulv

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.