The White House asked that we forward “fishy” emails to them. Since any forwarded email contains the senders name and email address, I find it astounding that you believe that asking people to forward emails to the White House is perfectly fine. Obama seems to think so, as he said in New Hampshire:
So despite your claim, he did ask people to send both the “fishy” information and the sender’s name to the White House. I will accept your apology for saying that I “repeat lies”.
So that would be a no, then?
That appears to be exactly what I described in my post rather than what **intention **described
me
intention
did that site ask for anybody’s email address or suggest people should inform on their neighbor? Not that I saw.
No, I’m claiming that at least some of the lies or disinformation come from someone’s neighbor rather than, say, GOP-funded 501(c)(3)s. I’d further claim that it’s a false distinction; it doesn’t matter whether my neighbor got the idea from his cousin or his barber or a GOP-funded 501(c)(3), only that he now espouses the idea. I’d further claim that fishiness doesn’t require an actual lie or disinformation.
I’m merely claiming that, if you get an e-mail on health-insurance reform that seems fishy, you’re told to send it to the stated address – regardless of whether the e-mail comes from your neighbor or from someone else, and regardless of whether it was originated by your neighbor or by a GOP-funded 501(c)3), and regardless of whether it involves “lies and disinformation”. If you get any such e-mail from your neighbor, send it to the specified address; that’s all.
Just what do you suppose “it” is? What sort of information do you think “it” may contain?
No, cosmosdan, it did not directly ask for anybody’s email. It just asked you to forward your neighbor’s email (which contains their email address and their ideas) to the White House. Do you truly think this makes the slightest difference in the outcome?
Now, they could have said “DON’T FORWARD THE EMAIL, just summarize what they are saying, we don’t want the email addresses, we want to counter false arguments”. But they didn’t. They said “forward us the email”.
Since by asking you to forward the email they are in fact asking you to forward your neighbor’s email address and their ideas, you sound like a pettifogging lawyer. Sending your neighbor’s name and what your neighbor wrote to the White House is informing on your neighbor. I don’t care that it’s for a noble cause. Bush thought Iraq was a noble cause, but if Bush had asked you to forward him the ideas and the email addresses of people opposing the war, cosmosdan, you’d likely have been among the first to protest. I know I would gave been.
So why is it OK when Obama does it?
Your link does not even contain the word neighbor. Could you please replace that term with something less incendiary, like ‘homicide bomber’? Or better yet, stick with terms that are actually used in your cite in order to construct your outrage.
As things stand, you’ve left a distinct odor of hot tinfoil in the air around you.
Nice try. The context of the speech was clear from the day it was announced. Earliest reference I can find here. On August 14, UPI reported that the president said during an interview with an 11 year-old student reporter that the speech would be about “the importance of education, the importance of staying in school, how we want to improve our education system, and why it’s so important for the country.”
Even as of September 3, the Christian Science Monitor quoted a WH spokesperson describing it as such: "
What part of the lesson plan indicated that this was anything other than what it was reported as, a discussion about the importance of education? The correct answer is nothing. Nothing at all. There is no rational reason to believe the cherry-picked statement meant anything other than what are your ideas for helping the president with the topic at hand? The context was clear. You’ve clearly been duped.
Really? Why not? Used to be a time when POTUS was an honored and respected position. Used to be a time when we encouraged kids who aspired to the presidency. Used to be a time when the president asked citizens to contribute to the betterment of our country, we were inspired and proud to a part of the process. Why shouldn’t we aspire to help the president? He’s got a big job, he needs to hear from his citizens; kids should learn that they are part of the process, not just bitter reactionaries to the machinations of politicians. Who says the help means I agree with everything the president says? Why can’t help be speaking out by saying, “You should be working on *this *problem, Mr. President. Here’s my idea of a solution.”
Jumping to the conclusion that simply asking kids to “help the president” is nefarious from the get-go is unreasonable and steeped in political bias. Especially in light of the completely reasonable topic of the speech, reported from the moment of its announcement and reinforced by the subsequently released lesson plan.
Then I would say the DOE fell down on the job in previous years. The lesson plan is simply a resource for teachers. It’s a jumping off point for turning the speech into a teachable moment. I can’t find anywhere that says the speech or the lesson plan are mandatory. It seems reasonable for an organization to provide a guideline for questions and answers with regard to the material its presenting. Of course, it stands to reason that the individual schools or teachers might decide to create its own lesson plan. What’s the big deal?
What’s your point? It’s not mandatory. It’s simply a resource that’s available to those who wish to use it. It’s a guideline. Would it make any difference if it were written by an educator? Is there any indication it wasn’t?
Hmm, let’s see. The plan says it was produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows. I wonder who they are… Oh look, they’re public school teachers! Who better to write a lesson plan?
I call BS on this too. It’s always been about the speech and, most importantly, that Obama has the audacity to address public school children. Shall I remind you once again that using the lesson plan the DOE provided is optional? Since this is the case, what’s the big deal, again? That actual public school teachers wrote a lesson plan that asked children how they could help the president in conjunction with a speech about personal responsibility and educational excellence? Could it be that the answers they are looking for might have something to do with, oh I don’t know, staying in school and doing their homework?
Watch how I don’t get all defensive over your over-the-top depiction of my poor paraphrasing. I apologize for misrepresenting your statement; it was sloppy debate on my part. Upon review, I see that you are specifically saying that you find Bush asking for your child’s help distressing. How about Bush daddy? Does that worry you? I already cited where the senior Bush did the same thing.
Unnecessary. As I pointed out above, with cites (!), there was context. Are you disputing that context? Are you suggesting that the Obama administration was misrepresenting the intent and content of the speech?
You only don’t know since you seem to have been sticking your fingers in your ears. The context of the speech was announced on the day the speech was announced. So, now that the speech has been released, will you concede that it’s much ado about nothing?
Hmm, let’s talk again about paraphrasing statements. At what point did I indicate that the DOE lesson plan was a time-honored tradition? I really have no basis for knowing that. But what I do know is a time-honored tradition, just as I said, is the POTUS addressing school children as evidenced by George H.W. Bush’s address and Reagan’s address. (I’m pretty sure I remember Dubya and Clinton school addresses, but I can find no reference to them.)
Then you’re about to be disappointed.
You’re doing just what the opposition does by selecting a word and finding an interpretation that makes a particular criticism seem to have legs when it doesn’t.
Here’s the stated purpose of the site
and Obama says it again in the quote you provided.
although he did use the term “forward” that doesn’t mean the only option is to hit the forward button or their intention is to gather the email addresses of people spreading misinformation.
cut and paste would also be a way of forwarding a particular email that would not contain the original senders information.
Here’s what you claimed
and
no he didn’t. He did not specifically ask for email addresses or for Americans to report their neighbors. He asked for our help with the misinformation so they could answer the questions and correct the intentional lies being spread.
you are interpreting it as something malicious and in doing so aiding those who began the lie all the while claiming to be an Obama supporter.
Clearly what information is included in an email sent to flag@whitehouse.gov. is at the discretion of the sender.
It doesn’t need to contain the word “neighbor”. If I tell you to kiss anyone who waves at you, that includes your neighbor. If I tell you to kill anyone who waves at you, that includes your neighbor. If I tell you to wave at everyone you meet as you’re walking down the street, that includes your neighbor. It includes your neighbor unless and until I say otherwise.
You’re to send along the e-mail regardless of who sent it to you. That includes your neighbor as surely as it includes your uncle or your pastor; nobody is excluded, everyone is included. That’s not tinfoil; it’s grammar.
I agree that the whitehouse.gov/realitycheck folks should have been more prepared for the hysterical paranoia that has arisen on this issue, and should have phrased the suggestion in a way that couldn’t have been so easily misinterpreted. However, I do think you have to put in some earnest effort at misinterpretation to be in any way scared by that website’s suggestion. As a card-carrying ACLU member, I actually prefer my fellow citizens to be a bit prone to hysterical paranoia on civil liberties issues, so even though I think this reaction is pretty silly, it potentially serves a useful purpose.
Most importantly, though, as we have known for some time, the government (specifically the NSA) is already conducting unwarranted large-scale surveillance of private email messages, and has been since at least 2005. If the feds really want to get the names and email addresses of people sending emails containing anti-UHC rumors (a perfectly legal thing to do, btw), they don’t have to wait for you or me to forward our inbox spam to them.
If folks would like to redirect their hysterical paranoia towards the NSA surveillance program in general, I’m all for that. Freaking out over the “send us anti-UHC rumors” issue, on the other hand, is a tempest in a teapot.
Well, yeah. That’s the problem with your two-pronged question: “did that site ask for anybody’s email address or suggest people should inform on their neighbor? Not that I saw.” It didn’t suggest that we remove the sender’s e-mail address when forwarding an e-mail; it thus didn’t ask for anyone’s e-mail address, but anyone who did “hit the forward button” could honestly claim they were doing as suggested.
Would you like me to forward you an email that I got from someone else, but simply take out the sender’s email address? That’s something that I frequently do, and I would think that anyone who knows how to use a computer would know how to drag their mouse over the sender’s email address and hit the Delete button.
Your claim was specifically that the White House was asking people to send them the names and/or addresses of people who were sending this stuff out, and the cites show that claim to be wrong.
It’s patently obvious that what they’re asking for is the body of the email claims, and they’re not trying to get a list of political opponents.
So?
Pssst… Kimstu - you just linked to Alex Jones’s web site. I don’t know what you’re saying is true or not, but just hovering my mouse over the link and seeing it go to infowars.com makes me think probably not.
How is “forward us the email” subject to “misinterpretation” as you claim? Give me three alternate interpretations of it, and I’ll believe you. Til then, I’ll continue to claim that “forward us the email” means, well … “forward us the email”.
Now, perhaps you think that people being concerned about the Government asking citizens to send their neighbor’s email address and their neighbor’s “fishy” ideas to the White House is just “hysterical paranoia” … to me, it’s a legitimate issue and a valid concern.
And yes, I’m much more concerned about the NSA’s spying (which has continued under Obama’s “transparency”) than I am about people forwarding my emails to the White House … but that doesn’t mean that only one of them is worth being concerned about.
Again I say, if Bush had done it, many of you guys would be all over it … so why is it OK when Obama does it? Is there someone reading this that thinks it would have been perfectly OK for Bush to ask people to forward their neighbors’ emails opposing the Iraq War to the White House? If so, I earnestly entreat you to c’mon down and explain why that would have been just fine.
And if not, I repeat my question —why is it OK for Obama?
Please note that “if this other thing had happened, you would have hated it, so why is this fine?” is not an actual argument. Also, I don’t believe that you’re a devil’s advocate who supported Obama.
So that’s my answer to his question: he asked whether it asked for anyone’s e-mail address or suggested that people should inform on their neighbor, and I replied that anyone who informed on their neighbor by hitting the forward button – to send the e-mail complete with address – could honestly claim they were doing as suggested.
Yes because any reasonable thinking person can forward the information in the email without including anyone’s information except their own.
Yes , they said they wanted to counter false arguments. So, because they didn’t specifically state they didn’t want, need, or care about the email addresses you interpret it as informing on your neighbor? It’s too bad they assumed they were communicating with rational people who didn’t look for the worst case scenario.
They are asking specifically and only for the content to answer a question and address misinformation. Whether the original senders info is in there is up to who forwards it and how they do it. You’re claiming that Obama choosing the word forward must mean hitting the forward button and by extension means informing on your neighbor. You’re wrong because that’s not the only option?
If Bush asked us to forward arguments against the war I’d be smart enough to send the arguments without anyone else’s personal information.
If he asked us to inform on our neighbors it wouldn’t be. He didn’t.
When you claim “he said X, but he actually intended Y” you’re supporting the lie that the opposition spread " Obama wants us to send our neighbors personal information to the government so they can track who disagrees with them"
No more or less information than the sender chooses, right?