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