I'm so not with you, Frank. If they were requesting the names, location, SS number, and greatest fear of every healthcare critic, then, yes, it would be an outrage. But a request to hear what people are hearing that they think might be misinformation (of which there IS A LOT in this debate)? I think that's a good idea for a president trying to effectively challenge a lot of mendacious nonsense.
It is not a question of being with me, Frank. It is against the law. To think they want this information in the interest of dispassionate debate is naive. Such information gathering as you suggest could be done in an afternoon by a single individual sitting at his laptop. Ask any journalist.
CORRECTION:The spinners on behalf of the White House have claimed that the request for information is an innocent desire to acquire talking points (i.e., the White House will then know which objections from the public ought to be more strategically addressed). I am not buying the spin. The spirit of the solicitation is offensive, unconstitutional, and frightening. Perhaps a couple of folk wisdom phrases ought to be thrown at the spinners and defenders: "you give him an inch and he will take a mile"; "once the camel gets his nose under the tent"; "penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the act." Choose your own folksy metaphor--from the innocuous to the off-color--but the facts remain the same: the White House is venturing into very dangerous, very disturbing territory. If anyone really ascribes innocent intentions to this White House (i.e., this president), then they are being disturbingly naive about the implications of this latest example of what I can only be called the tyranny of power.
All this concern about the abuse of government power. Where oh where were you guys when Bush and Cheney were shredding the constitution?
Against the law?!?!?
"Let's send troops to Lackawanna!"
"Concentration camps for Cuba!"
"Habeas Corpus has to go!"
"We have to invade!"
Let's not worry 'bout that stuff, right? Let's worry about people who want to know when there are lies being told to fellow citizens about what's really in health care reform.
hehehehehehehe! No wonder Stewart has such an easy time writing his show.
Beau Blue, setting aside your hyperbole, I want to step up and say that this debate has little to do with the past (although I would probably join you in arguing that previous administrations are responsible for certain abuses). Arguing against Bush and his predecessors, though, does nothing to clarify the current state of affairs. The discussion ought to stay on topic: What is this White House really up to in all of this information gathering?
What are they up to? Combating the lies being told about their health care policies.
And my question to conservatives stands. Call it the "past" if you want. But I'm suspicious of Repubs who are, all of a sudden, concerned about governmental power and abuses when for so many years they didn't care and even assisted in governmental power grabs that hang, sword like, over the Bill of Rights today. (No President ever gives power back, right? And Gitmo is still a going concern.)
When the Dems try to institute mechanisms to learn of the lies about their policies as quickly as possible, so they can combat those lies, the Repubs start quibbling about power abuse to try and stop them. That the Repubs have been guilty of so much power abuse for such a long time is why they're out of office. To cry now about the Dems wanting to know of when lies about their policies are being advanced, and to do so as an illegal "abuse of power" complaint is laughable.
Amen, Beau Blue. The White House is asking, not requiring, you to send examples of right-wing lies about its health-care proposals. If you don't trust the White House, then don't send them. This is a night-and-day difference from the previous administration's "Privacy Act" encroachment on our liberties -- by a party that pretends to make "liberty" its central principle. And whose spokesman, as Anonymous notes, said Americans should be careful what they say and do.
I am here in Brooklyn, and have just glanced at this. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, our yellow dog dems their point that the previosu adminstration threatened civil liberties. Exactly how would nthat excuse the current administration doing the same? Moreover, do they acknowledge the existence of the cited statute or not? And is the adminstration obliged to obey it or not? And might it just be possible for a discussion such as this to be conducted in a civil manner? Arguemts are not strengthened by truculence.
I want to avoid adding fuel to the flames (which I think are inappropriate) by going back to original premise: Why is the White House collecting information in the announced manner? Couldn't they--like anyone else--monitor the media? Politicians have always identified opposing points of view as a tactic for furthering their own strategies for successfully devising policy and legislation. What strikes as wrong-headed about this most recent tactic, though, is that it seems like (though it may not actually be) a device for accumulating information about objectors rather than objections. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Now, a person can complain all he wants to about Bush, Cheney, and the entire Republican party, but that does nothing to advance the discussion about what is now going on with the current administration's tactic assault on a common sense approach to ethics and Constitutional protections from infringements (or assaults upon) free speech (even politically oppositional speech). With the White House spinning the issue one way, with the media spinning it all sorts of ways, with conservative pundits spinning it their way, and with Bush-bashers spinning it their way, we are left with the basic problem: What is the real story? How can we verify it as "real" in such a skewed and polarized media environment? Finally, again setting aside Bush, Cheney, et al . . . let me simply add this to the question about the current state of affairs: If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck . . . well, the odds are that it is a duck. From my vantage point, there are duck feathers all over this one.
Postscript to the previous posting: Let me be absolutely clear . . . there were plenty of duck feathers to be found in previous administrations. Do not make the mistake of stereotyping me as a Republican simply because I question current events. My concern is actually deeply seated in a rather bipartisan, apolitical, objective understanding of the law and the Constitution.
Well, you're right Frank, I do think Mr. Maloney's baloney istruculent Repub spinning.
But I'm guessing that you're 'truculence' comment is aimed at me. If I'm right, I apologize for once again not knowing the difference between 'commenting' and being 'scathingly harsh'. If I'm wrong, well, shame on you, R.T.
None of that changes the fact that Mr. Balon .. er .. Maloney is propagandizing in his article with his questions about fishiness and disinformation and is therefore fair game for some questions in return. So I asked 'em. But that's just my opinion.
This 'privacy' legality question is being thrown out as a way to obfuscate. Period.
So, it's not illegal to lie about health care reform but it is illegal to collect info about what lies are being told and where? And we should all think this is a a bigger threat to our democracy than what went on for the previous eight years? Sure. I believe it.
Yellow Dog Democrat? hehehehehehehehe! Frank, I was born in Pennsylvania! I voted for William Scanton my first election.
I do not think I have been impolite in any of my comments. It is hard to NOT look like you're ridiculing an article like Mr. Maloney's which has such a ridiculous premise. Or so I sincerely believe.
I will admit that I poke too much fun sometimes and so, do sincerely apologize for overstepping as often as I do.
R.T., none of the articles or any of the comments surrounding this thread rise to the level of 'flames'.
I am more worried about the open cans of worms that Gitmo and torture represent than I am worried about a voluntary list of lies being told and the manner in which the list is being compiled.
I'm not interested in getting caught up in an obfuscatory argument about privacy instead of arguing about health care reform. Less interested in being derailed into talking about how sinister Obama is than in talking about how the only way Repubs have of killing health care reform is by lying to people about it.
A lot of people voted for Obama. Like it or not he got elected to, among other things, reform health care in America. Now, lots of operatives, like Maloney, are out there trying to vilify Obama in any way they can. You're here to help, I see. I'm here to object, you see. But these aren't flames, at least, not to me.
Perhaps my comments were inappropriate, and I withdraw everything that I have said on the subject and extend my apologies to whomever I have offended. -30-
There's no more feeble line of argument than the 'tu quoque', that since the Republicans did X then Democrats should not be criticized when they do Y. On the contrary, they should be opposed just as fiercely by anyone, Democrat, Republican or independent, who cares about ethics and the values of a free society and is not merely a partisan hack.
I'm so not with you, Frank. If they were requesting the names, location, SS number, and greatest fear of every healthcare critic, then, yes, it would be an outrage. But a request to hear what people are hearing that they think might be misinformation (of which there IS A LOT in this debate)? I think that's a good idea for a president trying to effectively challenge a lot of mendacious nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a question of being with me, Frank. It is against the law. To think they want this information in the interest of dispassionate debate is naive. Such information gathering as you suggest could be done in an afternoon by a single individual sitting at his laptop. Ask any journalist.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION:The spinners on behalf of the White House have claimed that the request for information is an innocent desire to acquire talking points (i.e., the White House will then know which objections from the public ought to be more strategically addressed). I am not buying the spin. The spirit of the solicitation is offensive, unconstitutional, and frightening. Perhaps a couple of folk wisdom phrases ought to be thrown at the spinners and defenders: "you give him an inch and he will take a mile"; "once the camel gets his nose under the tent"; "penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the act." Choose your own folksy metaphor--from the innocuous to the off-color--but the facts remain the same: the White House is venturing into very dangerous, very disturbing territory. If anyone really ascribes innocent intentions to this White House (i.e., this president), then they are being disturbingly naive about the implications of this latest example of what I can only be called the tyranny of power.
ReplyDeleteAs that great American, Ari Fleischer, said, "all Americans . . . need to watch what they say, watch what they do."
ReplyDeleteAll this concern about the abuse of government power. Where oh where were you guys when Bush and Cheney were shredding the constitution?
ReplyDeleteAgainst the law?!?!?
"Let's send troops to Lackawanna!"
"Concentration camps for Cuba!"
"Habeas Corpus has to go!"
"We have to invade!"
Let's not worry 'bout that stuff, right? Let's worry about people who want to know when there are lies being told to fellow citizens about what's really in health care reform.
hehehehehehehe! No wonder Stewart has such an easy time writing his show.
Beau Blue, setting aside your hyperbole, I want to step up and say that this debate has little to do with the past (although I would probably join you in arguing that previous administrations are responsible for certain abuses). Arguing against Bush and his predecessors, though, does nothing to clarify the current state of affairs. The discussion ought to stay on topic: What is this White House really up to in all of this information gathering?
ReplyDeleteWhat are they up to? Combating the lies being told about their health care policies.
ReplyDeleteAnd my question to conservatives stands. Call it the "past" if you want. But I'm suspicious of Repubs who are, all of a sudden, concerned about governmental power and abuses when for so many years they didn't care and even assisted in governmental power grabs that hang, sword like, over the Bill of Rights today. (No President ever gives power back, right? And Gitmo is still a going concern.)
When the Dems try to institute mechanisms to learn of the lies about their policies as quickly as possible, so they can combat those lies, the Repubs start quibbling about power abuse to try and stop them. That the Repubs have been guilty of so much power abuse for such a long time is why they're out of office. To cry now about the Dems wanting to know of when lies about their policies are being advanced, and to do so as an illegal "abuse of power" complaint is laughable.
-blue
Amen, Beau Blue. The White House is asking, not requiring, you to send examples of right-wing lies about its health-care proposals. If you don't trust the White House, then don't send them. This is a night-and-day difference from the previous administration's "Privacy Act" encroachment on our liberties -- by a party that pretends to make "liberty" its central principle. And whose spokesman, as Anonymous notes, said Americans should be careful what they say and do.
ReplyDeleteI am here in Brooklyn, and have just glanced at this. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, our yellow dog dems their point that the previosu adminstration threatened civil liberties. Exactly how would nthat excuse the current administration doing the same? Moreover, do they acknowledge the existence of the cited statute or not? And is the adminstration obliged to obey it or not? And might it just be possible for a discussion such as this to be conducted in a civil manner? Arguemts are not strengthened by truculence.
ReplyDeleteI want to avoid adding fuel to the flames (which I think are inappropriate) by going back to original premise: Why is the White House collecting information in the announced manner? Couldn't they--like anyone else--monitor the media? Politicians have always identified opposing points of view as a tactic for furthering their own strategies for successfully devising policy and legislation. What strikes as wrong-headed about this most recent tactic, though, is that it seems like (though it may not actually be) a device for accumulating information about objectors rather than objections. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Now, a person can complain all he wants to about Bush, Cheney, and the entire Republican party, but that does nothing to advance the discussion about what is now going on with the current administration's tactic assault on a common sense approach to ethics and Constitutional protections from infringements (or assaults upon) free speech (even politically oppositional speech). With the White House spinning the issue one way, with the media spinning it all sorts of ways, with conservative pundits spinning it their way, and with Bush-bashers spinning it their way, we are left with the basic problem: What is the real story? How can we verify it as "real" in such a skewed and polarized media environment? Finally, again setting aside Bush, Cheney, et al . . . let me simply add this to the question about the current state of affairs: If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck . . . well, the odds are that it is a duck. From my vantage point, there are duck feathers all over this one.
ReplyDeletePostscript to the previous posting: Let me be absolutely clear . . . there were plenty of duck feathers to be found in previous administrations. Do not make the mistake of stereotyping me as a Republican simply because I question current events. My concern is actually deeply seated in a rather bipartisan, apolitical, objective understanding of the law and the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWell, you're right Frank, I do think Mr. Maloney's baloney is truculent Repub spinning.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm guessing that you're 'truculence' comment is aimed at me. If I'm right, I apologize for once again not knowing the difference between 'commenting' and being 'scathingly harsh'. If I'm wrong, well, shame on you, R.T.
None of that changes the fact that Mr. Balon .. er .. Maloney is propagandizing in his article with his questions about fishiness and disinformation and is therefore fair game for some questions in return. So I asked 'em. But that's just my opinion.
This 'privacy' legality question is being thrown out as a way to obfuscate. Period.
So, it's not illegal to lie about health care reform but it is illegal to collect info about what lies are being told and where? And we should all think this is a a bigger threat to our democracy than what went on for the previous eight years? Sure. I believe it.
Yellow Dog Democrat? hehehehehehehehe! Frank, I was born in Pennsylvania! I voted for William Scanton my first election.
-blue
**
*
"You don't really believe that!"
"Shhush, I'm trying to be less truculent."
An addendum:
ReplyDeleteI do not think I have been impolite in any of my comments. It is hard to NOT look like you're ridiculing an article like Mr. Maloney's which has such a ridiculous premise. Or so I sincerely believe.
I will admit that I poke too much fun sometimes and so, do sincerely apologize for overstepping as often as I do.
-blue
An additional addendum:
ReplyDeleteR.T., none of the articles or any of the comments surrounding this thread rise to the level of 'flames'.
I am more worried about the open cans of worms that Gitmo and torture represent than I am worried about a voluntary list of lies being told and the manner in which the list is being compiled.
I'm not interested in getting caught up in an obfuscatory argument about privacy instead of arguing about health care reform. Less interested in being derailed into talking about how sinister Obama is than in talking about how the only way Repubs have of killing health care reform is by lying to people about it.
A lot of people voted for Obama. Like it or not he got elected to, among other things, reform health care in America. Now, lots of operatives, like Maloney, are out there trying to vilify Obama in any way they can. You're here to help, I see. I'm here to object, you see. But these aren't flames, at least, not to me.
-blue
Perhaps my comments were inappropriate, and I withdraw everything that I have said on the subject and extend my apologies to whomever I have offended. -30-
ReplyDeleteThere's no more feeble line of argument than the 'tu quoque', that since the Republicans did X then Democrats should not be criticized when they do Y. On the contrary, they should be opposed just as fiercely by anyone, Democrat, Republican or independent, who cares about ethics and the values of a free society and is not merely a partisan hack.
ReplyDelete