Is there a double standard in this Obama school address controversy?

[Lobohan]

@intention

So you agree that the President said that people should forward the emails, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because (as you keep claiming) the White House didn’t want us to forward the emails? Obama’s mistaken? Is that the claim? I’m confused here … and apparently, so is the President.

If the President is confused about what’s being asked by his own White House, isn’t it quite reasonable that other people would be confused too? Doesn’t that mean the the President is “misinterpreting”, as you say above, what the Administration is asking?

And since even the President is “misinterpreting” what the WH said, then is it not reasonable that the people are not “over-reacting”, but simply reacting?

Be clear about my position. I don’t think that the Obama Administration is trying to collect my neighbor’s email addresses and ideas. I’m neither paranoid nor right-wing.

I do think, however, that collecting people’s email addresses and ideas will be the inevitable result of the Administration’s ham-handed actions. I don’t care what the exact wording of the request was. The result will be people forwarding emails to the White House, just like the President requested … and that inevitably, in the absence of instructions to do otherwise, many or perhaps most of the forwarded emails will be forwarded in the usual, average, bozo way — click “Forward”, type in “flag@whitehouse.gov”, hit “Return”.

Perhaps that’s fine and proper with you. Not with me. I invited people to defend how those same actions would have been OK if Bush did it. Not one of you has responded that they think that Bush asking people to forward emails critical of the Iraq War to the White House would have been fine and proper and OK with them. Not one.

So unless somebody wants to stand up for Bush’s right to do what Obama did, I call bullshit on the lot of you. You think it’s fine and proper and perfectly understandable when Obama does it, but not if Bush had done it. I think it’s wrong in both cases.

That’s my “hyper-delicate reaction”, and I’m stickin’ to it …

w.

I, for one, don’t think the White House should have to parse every sentence it writes so that a pack of ignorant, hysterical, cowards might not mis-construe it. The modern Republican party is made up of stupid children stamping their feet, and catering to their stupidity and self-destructive natures isn’t the way to go.

If a Republican drone refuses to understand the purpose of the assimilation of the lying health care emails due to paranoia or delusion, there’s no helping it. You can’t *make *someone think. A woman who cries because Obama is going to try to indoctrinate her child with evil socialism, is a fucking moron. A worthless simpleton who shouldn’t be catered to.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

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.

Yeah but you could just as easily replace the word neighbor with the word terrorists, traitors and child molesters. See if I did THAT then, the Obama administration was encouraging you to forward fishy emails from terrorists, traitors and child molesters. Why are these people trying to protect the terrorists, traitors and child molesters?

You can’t just insert words where they did not exist and pretend that you didn’t actually change anything.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@intention

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.

Well, if Bush were facing a massive disinformation campaign. A campaign so massive that you can’t even keep track of all the lies and disinformation and Bush was trying to “set the record straight” BEFORE he invaded Iraq then I might not have much of a problem with it. If he did the same thing AFTER he invaded Iraq and started punishing dissent, I would be a LOT more skeptical. So I guess I would be MUCH more skeptical of the details of how Obama gathers information if he had just invaded a country and killed thousands of innocent civilians based on lies.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Saint_Cad

I don’t think I have EVER heard one side backlash, belittle, ridicule, and dismiss out of hand everything a President did more than what was done to George W. Bush.

Well, that is one of the unfortunate side effects of using a national tragedy to deceive your country into invading another country. You lose your credibility and people become suspicious of everything you do.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

Winning hearts and minds the upstanding, uplifting way.

That was a class act, Mr. President. Kudos.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@intention

Don’t provide more ammunition for the naysayers.

This seems to be the crux of all your posts in this thread. Not that Obama has done anything that was actually bad but that Obama has done things that the Limbaugh crowd could twist into something bad. I don’t know how you prevent the other side from parsing over everyting you say and do to find something to twist and distort into something that will scare people. Its not like they stop at stuff you actually say, they seem to be perfectly happy to just make stuff up out of whole cloth and pretend you said it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Jack_Batty

“How can you help McGruff the Crime Dog?”

Start by ratting out your neighbors, then dishonor the troops and tax the widows and orphans. Its obvious that’s what McGruff wants, damn socialist dog.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Back in my school days, hearing the president speak was exciting and honorable (and my parents despised and vehemently disagreed with Reagan). Yet, he was given the respect the office did (and should) afford him.

Tha is if he really IS our President. After all no one has personally shown me the back and front of his birth certificate and allowed me to subject it to lab tests to ensure that it is an authentic birth certificate.

[Squink]

@Lobohan

You can’t *make *someone think.

But you can lead a moron to water, and tell him it’s land.

[kaylasdad99]

@intention

Man, I’ve never seen such a bunch of nit-picking lawyers in my life.

Aren’t you the one who’s been preaching at us that calling people names is no way to get them to come around to your point of view? What the hell was THAT all about?

[CurtC]

@intention

I invited people to defend how those same actions would have been OK if Bush did it. Not one of you has responded that they think that Bush asking people to forward emails critical of the Iraq War to the White House would have been fine and proper and OK with them. Not one.

Well, as we’ve been saying, context is important. If Bush had been fighting a misinformation campaign with his opponents spreading lies about the invasion, and he started by saying that they’d like to set the record straight, so if anyone gets something in an email that they haven’t seen answered properly, please forward it on to the White House, I would think that would be a fine and proper request.

I don’t think it’s in Obama’s interests to cater every word to what the craziest of his opponents might interpret it into. It’s the old adage about wrestling with a pig.

[intention]

@CurtC

Well, as we’ve been saying, context is important. If Bush had been fighting a misinformation campaign with his opponents spreading lies about the invasion, and he started by saying that they’d like to set the record straight, so if anyone gets something in an email that they haven’t seen answered properly, please forward it on to the White House, I would think that would be a fine and proper request.

I don’t think it’s in Obama’s interests to cater every word to what the craziest of his opponents might interpret it into. It’s the old adage about wrestling with a pig.

Oh, I see. It’s ok to ask people to spy on their neighbors if their opponents are spreading lies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[intention]

@kaylasdad99

Aren’t you the one who’s been preaching at us that calling people names is no way to get them to come around to your point of view? What the hell was THAT all about?

Yeah, you’re right. That was about and me getting tired of people trying to parse and reparse a call for people to forward emails into a call for information with the email addresses removed.

My bad, my apologies.

[Lobohan]

@intention

Oh, I see. It’s ok to ask people to spy on their neighbors if their opponents are spreading lies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Of course it’s not okay. It’s also not what is under discussion. Wanting a list of the lies isn’t the same as compiling an enemies list.

You going off all chicken-little doesn’t make this issue meaningful.

[Squink]

@intention

Oh, I see. It’s ok to ask people to spy on their neighbors if their opponents are spreading lies.

No one said anything about spying on neighbors. That’s the euphemism you use to avoid identifying the emailers as deceptive persons and organizations. Are your neighbors that bad that they’re all liars and cheats? I like most of my neighbors, and they don’t send me dishonest Republican spam. Perhaps it’s time you moved or at least changed email accounts. That could give you a better attitude with regard to your actual neighbors.

[intention]

@cosmosdan

It’s interesting you call sticking to the facts nit picking.

The fact is the President asked us to forward to the White House emails that opposed his health care plan. The “nit-picking” refers to claiming that (despite their never having said it) the White House wanted us to remove the email addresses from those emails, simply because although the President used the word “forward” the web site didn’t use that exact word.

@cosmosdan

I agree they should be smart in their approach but once again, they won’t stop those looking through every word uttered to find something to twist around. You’re suggesting they be on the defensive. I’m suggesting they fight back in other ways and stop letting the opposition dictate the game.

I’m not saying that they should be “defensive”. I’m suggesting that if your opponents want to twist your words and actions, common sense says you should watch what you say and do.

@cosmosdan

If they wanted to covertly collect email addresses and other personal information they could pretty easily. It’s the suggestion that they wanted average citizens to inform on their neighbors to some government agency for some malicious fascist reason that needs to be treated with disdain.

No, they want average citizens to inform on their neighbors for noble and correct reasons, so that the WH can fight misinformation … we know that because that’s what they say.

@cosmosdan

They stated their reasons was to answer questions and concerns and keep the public informed. To dwell on and answer to ridiculous charges only gives those lies traction. You’re suggesting they take extra time and effort to trash email addresses and announce it. What do you suppose the opposition will say? All the time they spend defending themselves against BS accusations benefits the opposition.

No, I don’t want them to just trash the email addresses. I want them to shut the program down. It’s still running. It’s still collecting email addresses. Are we truly to believe that the WH needs our help to figure out what particularly nasty internet memes about their health care plan are floating around the Intartubes? Do they think there’s secret messages being passed hand to hand that aren’t just copied from one of dozens of blogs? Do you think they couldn’t collect this information without your neighbor’s email messages to give them a vital clue? Really?

@cosmosdan

IMHO it’s much better to treat those lies with the disdain they deserve. “we’re not targeting or tracking average citizens who happen to disagree with us. That suggestion is a political ploy that takes time away from serious issues. We’re attempting to offer answers to questions and concerns and fight the fear mongers with facts. We celebrate our democracy and welcome the participation of those who disagree with us.” and then move on to serious matters.

Right, and Bush was just trying to protect America through torture … you don’t buy that bullshit, do you? That the ends justify the means, and that we can do wrong things if our motives are pure? Don’t you understand that the reason that they are doing it matters no more for Obama than for Bush?

I don’t care what the reasons are, it’s wrong to ask people to forward emails that they disagree with to the Government. No matter what the reason. And I’m astounded that the Obama administration is doing it (although given their support and continuation of several Bush era spying and secrecy programs, I suppose I shouldn’t be). And mostly I’m surprised that so many of you support such actions in any way, shape, or form.

If you had sent me an email opposing the war, and without telling you I had forwarded it to the Bush White House email address and all, how would you have felt when you found out? Betrayed? Insulted? Endangered? Or would you have said “It’s OK, no problem”?

Look, I believe that the Administration is not compiling some enemies list from the email addresses of people who oppose their plan. But I don’t know that, nobody knows what they’re doing or not doing with the addresses. I figure they’re just ignoring them. They’ll likely just hang around in a computer file, and collect dust for years, and eventually end up in the Obama historical library … but I don’t care much for that outcome either.

But what you don’t seem to be accepting is that many people, mainly on the right but also the left, don’t trust Obama all that much. He has continued Bush era spying and secrecy policies, which I certainly didn’t expect. Spying and secrecy didn’t engender trust under Bush … or under Obama.

And, although I generally trust Obama, there are a lot of people out there who don’t trust him in the slightest. They feel about him the way I felt about Bush. They figure if he’s collecting email addresses, it likely is for some nefarious purpose.

Now, I don’t believe that … but so what? Why he’s collecting them is immaterial. Whether we trust him is immaterial. What he does with them is immaterial. None of that makes it right for the government to ask people to turn in their neighbors for thought crimes. No, he shouldn’t take extra time and effort to trash email addresses. He should trash the whole stupid program, addresses and all. It provides no useful information on the one hand, and it’s one of the reasons people don’t trust him on the other. All downside, no upside. Forget about disdaining the “lies”, treat the program with the disdain it richly deserves.

[intention]

@Squink

No one said anything about spying on neighbors. That’s the euphemism you use to avoid identifying the emailers as deceptive persons and organizations. Are your neighbors that bad that they’re all liars and cheats? I like most of my neighbors, and they don’t send me dishonest Republican spam. Perhaps it’s time you moved or at least changed email accounts. That could give you a better attitude with regard to your actual neighbors.

I don’t get much email spam about the health care program. In fact, I can’t think of one piece of spam that I’ve gotten on the subject. How about you?

I do get things forwarded to me sometimes about health care … but not by my enemies. Not by “deceptive persons and organizations”. By my friends and neighbors. Some of these contain stuff that I would call “fishy”, some don’t, and we discuss them all. That’s what I do with my friends and neighbors. How about you?

So yes, no one said anything about spying on neighbors. They also said nothing about not spying on neighbors. They just said to report “fishy” emails from everyone. Including you. Including me.

This is nitpicking. Asking people to inform on anyone because you disagree with their political views is wrong, wrong, wrong. Even if they are “liars and cheats”. Even if they are “dishonest Republicans”. Even if they are your neighbors.

[intention]

@Lobohan

Of course it’s not okay. It’s also not what is under discussion. Wanting a list of the lies isn’t the same as compiling an enemies list.

You going off all chicken-little doesn’t make this issue meaningful.

Lobohan, you said that if people were telling lies about Bush it would be OK for him to ask people to forward him emails containing the lies. To quote you exactly, you said:

@Lobohan

If Bush had been fighting a misinformation campaign with his opponents spreading lies about the invasion, and he started by saying that they’d like to set the record straight, so if anyone gets something in an email that they haven’t seen answered properly, please forward it on to the White House, I would think that would be a fine and proper request.

So for you, it seemed clear that the issue was whether people were telling lies about him. If they were lying, it was OK, and if they weren’t, it wouldn’t be ok.

So I said:

@intention

Oh, I see. It’s ok to ask people to spy on their neighbors if their opponents are spreading lies.

What am I missing here?

[Lobohan]

@intention

Lobohan, you said that if people were telling lies about Bush it would be OK for him to ask people to forward him emails containing the lies. To quote you exactly, you said:

So for you, it seemed clear that the issue was whether people were telling lies about him. If they were lying, it was OK, and if they weren’t, it wouldn’t be ok.

So I said:

What am I missing here?

Well for one you’re mistaking me with CurtC.

For two, this isn’t an enemies list. It is a list of specific lies that are being propagated by email. Lies that are often spread specifically by leaders on the right. If the administration didn’t know about, for instance, the “illegal alien” lie it wouldn’t be able to combat it until too late.

As for Bush, if his administration’s plans were being combated by disinformation being spread via the internet I think it would be fine to ask for a list of the disinformation.

That said, factual information is more in line with what the Bush administration was afraid of.

[Kimstu]

@intention

Oh, I see. It’s ok to ask people to spy on their neighbors if their opponents are spreading lies.

@intention

No, they want average citizens to inform on their neighbors for noble and correct reasons

@intention

None of that makes it right for the government to ask people to turn in their neighbors for thought crimes.

@intention

Asking people to inform on anyone because you disagree with their political views is wrong, wrong, wrong.

All this stuff about “spying” and “informing” and “turning in neighbors” is simply your own interpretation (albeit apparently shared with many other overreacting freaker-outers) of the White House’s request to send them examples of “disinformation” about the administration’s health care reform proposals.

You are deliberately and repeatedly choosing to use loaded, sinister-sounding words like “spying” and “informing” and “turning in neighbors” to foster the impression that what the Administration really wants to know is the identities of the people who oppose their proposed reforms, rather than the content of inaccurate rumors being circulated about those reforms.

@intention

I’m suggesting that if your opponents want to twist your words and actions, common sense says you should watch what you say and do.

I completely agree with you on this one, and I think, as I have said more than once, that the White House needs to be extremely careful about how they phrase things, precisely in order to avoid this kind of twisting and misinterpretation.

It’s unfortunate that you yourself are helping to twist the Administration’s words and actions on this issue, especially since you claim that you “generally trust Obama” and “believe that the Administration is not compiling some enemies list from the email addresses of people who oppose their plan”.

If you do not actually believe that the Administration truly wants people to “turn in their neighbors for thought crimes”, but are merely trying to point out that the Administration phrased a suggestion in such a way that it could possibly be twisted and misinterpreted to imply that they want people to turn in their neighbors for thought crimes, then you should stop repeating that the Administration is “asking” people to turn in their neighbors for thought crimes. You are simply perpetuating and reinforcing the very same alarmist inference about the Administration’s motives that you yourself claim not to believe.