Libs try to infiltrate tea party to feed liberal media

[drsmith1072]

Tore it down? You took out one sentence that you hoped you could spin:



AFP: Boeing plans 150-million-dollar charge under health-care law

This is the LAW. They have to do this.

It's already going to affect them. That's not a hypothetical.

Just because you don't understand the workings of business doesn't change that.

And you can't demand what I have to provide you for evidence. The language is not necessary if I can demonstrate the results, which I already have done.



You guys aren't out of school yet, are you?

Pretty obvious.

Still waiting on you to cite the "actual language" from the bill?? You said you can do it so why do you continue to avoid doing it? LOL

LOL it's "going to affect them" is a future event that has not yet occured and is based on a hypothetical which you said you do not debate in. You lied you lose again. LOL

Still in school.

Throwing himself on the ground and demanding I debate HIS WAY or else!!!!!!!!

Like I said, I don't have to provide the language. Just the results, which I already have, and this is just the beginning.

More avoidance from you. Thanks for proving that you can't do what you said you could do.

Oh and i am not defining the debate i am merely asking you to follow the same standards of proof that you presented in your earlier post. You made the claims and that you could do it so I asked you to and now you are running away.

Actually what you provided were future events that may or may not happen as you try to CLAIM that they are caused by the "actual language" from the bill when you have yet to show proof of that connection let alone proof that these events will actually ever happen. BTW in case you missed it, that last part was YOU trying to define the debate and have it your way or else. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

BS, I gave URLS to back up my photos. When you don't give urls, it's because you know the source is suspect.

I call BS!

And when you lie about the link not being there when it has been right above the photo all along, it's because you know the source is unimpeachable!!!

Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!

That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!

But I don't know what that proves.

If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.

If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.

Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.

It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.

So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.

But I'm sure it makes sense to liberals snatching desperately at any straw trying to smear the tea party.

Besides, he's not who started the Tea Party. Rick Santelli did:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA]YouTube - Rick Santelli and the "Rant of the Year"[/ame]

O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC’s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution

Rick Santelli delivered his now famous “Shout Heard ‘Round the World”—his impromptu suggestion that America needs a Boston Tea Party redux—on February 19, 2009. As a full-fledged CNBC geek, I happened to be watching “Squawk Box” that morning, my alternative to “The View.” (Not to take anything away from Babs and her bevy, but when it comes to looks and smarts, nobody can top CNBC morning money-honeys Melissa Francis and Trish Regan.)

This was an electrifying moment for cable television—but especially for the mostly genteel and always arcane CNBC. Even to a drama junkie like me, Santelli’s rant was instantly recognizable as pure, unadulterated, off-the-charts emotion. I mean, this was CNBC, dude! These guys get worked up about the LIBOR rates and global decoupling. But Tea Parties?
Here was a rare unscripted moment, a spontaneous economic cri de coeur. It didn’t hurt Santelli, whose straight-shooter affability is very infectious, that he had an army of like-minded traders behind him, with the modern-day equivalent of pitchforks—their BlackBerrys and iPhones—in hand ready to cheer on their modern day Paul Revere or Samuel Adams.

O Forgotten Hero: How CNBC’s Rick Santelli Started the Tea Party Revolution - Big Journalism

Once again you make claims not supported by fact.

The fact that he was removed for his distasteful sign does not prove that the tea party is not racist. It just proves that they did not like the sign. Of course the photo itself does not show that the party as a whole is racist but it does show that there is an element of racsim within the tea party. Which is what the disheonst among the tea partiers are refusing to admit to.

Oh and BTW nice avoidance of the FACT that you tried to call him out and are now backing away from the fact that he provided a source despite your false claim. If you were as honest as you pretend to be then you would have admitted that you were WRONG.

So thanks again for exposing your dishonesty. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Well finally we have a link! It is about freaking time!

That's all I asked for people. If I missed this before, I apologize. But why wasn't this pointed out to me before? I kept asking for it and instead you guys just kept pulling a Dan Rather saying *I* had to provide the link. It's about time!

But I don't know what that proves.

If the man was booted out of the event for having the sign all that proves is that the tea party is NOT racist.

If it was racist, they would have welcomed him with open arms for having that sign.

Instead they booted him out. So, I honestly don't know what that sign proves other than one person with bad judgement.

It would be like me bringing a Swastika to a Martin Luther King Rally and getting kicked out. Does that prove the MLK rally is racist? NO! Far from it. They said, take your sign elsewhere that's not what we are about.

So, how does them asking him to leave because of his sign prove the tea party racist? Makes absolutely no sense.[/url]

First of all the link WAS there all along and people were laughing at your dumb act pretending it wasn't there.

And the fact that he got the boot proves several things. First that the photo was real. Second CON$ know they are lying when they claim he was a plant. Third CON$ know they are lying when they say the signs are photoshopped. And lastly CON$ will lie to cover up the facts after they are caught. Robertson, after the photo was published, did his own photoshop job on the photo to try to accuse Libs of photoshopping the photo. Of course, he was just obeying his programming as shown in the first quote in my sig.

Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign | TPMMuckraker

Tea Partier's Site Shows Photoshopped Image Of Racist Sign

When you're a Tea Party activist and you've been caught holding a racist sign that refers to taxpayers as the "n" word, maybe it's better to just leave the whole subject alone.

Dale Robertson seems to disagree. Over the weekend, the Houston-based Tea Party leader posted a picture of himself at a rally last year that you can see opposite.

Notice something strange about the words on that sign Robertson is holding? That's because it's a (very poorly) photoshopped image.

No, it proves he was asked to leave.

You can desperately spin all you want, but it's no different than these guys:

Some LaRouchite cult members showed up with Obama-Hitler signs. Will the Left now be accused of bigotry, intolerance and hate crimes because someone who showed up at their rally put a Hitler mustache on the President? Signs point to "No."
San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance

This was quite an interesting discussion, as a hyper-self-confident LaRouchite tried to explain to an Obama fan why the president needs to be impeached. I had a feeling that, at conversation's end, not many minds had been changed.

San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance

They showed up at an leftwing antiwar rally. Does that make the left all racists? Or the rally racist?

And BTW, as far as my information goes, THEY WERE NOT ASKED TO LEAVE, as compared to what happened at the tea party.

Sorry but you can't spin your way out of this.

But keep on trying

WOW look at how she avoids the facts AGAIN. Then to try to cover for her avoidance she tries to change the subject.

How typical.

 

[Maple]

They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.

In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.

BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!

Would you care to prove your statement with a link, please. I have seen NO racist signs at any of the tea party protests.

 

[drsmith1072]

They were only kicked out because they thought they were liberals trying to make them look bad.

In the past they just let them carry any racist signs like Obama with a bone through his nose.

BTW the tea part events are the results of ONE GROUP!

Would you care to prove your statement with a link, please. I have seen NO racist signs at any of the tea party protests.

I am still waiting on righties to show how all of the nutjobs who have been filmed and photoed at tea party rallies since the beginning have all been plants.

That seems to be the argument that the righties making and yet I haven't seen any proof to substantiate that claim. I wonder why??

 

[CMike]

Actually YOU made the claim that because one is fake they all are fake and that is a LIE. Unless you can prove that all are fake then YOU LIED. In recent post you have backtracked and tried to claim that they are merely suspect but in your original argument you claimed that they were fake and the author was a lair.

YOU made the claim that they were all fake becuase one was and can't back up your own claim that onus is on YOU.
You could be honest and admit that you were WRONG but I don't believe that you have the integrity to be so honest.

Oh and i will post this again and again until you respond to it.

As for the onus being on the person who posted it, you were the one that posted that the guy with the swastika sign was a plant and yet you have failed to prove that claim and continue to avoid doing so despite being called out for your avoidance several times. Do you have the proof or not??

So will you respond or are you going to continue to be dishonest and avoid it?

Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.

No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.

I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.

I'm already done that.

The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Because you can't prove a negative.

That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.

Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.

*I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)

The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.

He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.

If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.

Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.

Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.

Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.

The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.

The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.

Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.

So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.

Why is it so hard for you to keep up?

Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.

Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

 

[drsmith1072]

Look you aren't out of school are you? It's becoming more and more obvious by your inability to understand how logic and evidence works.

No matter how you to try to force me on the defensive it isn't going to work.

I'm not the one that posted the photos. Have you ever been in a court of law? The Defense attorney doesn't have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" his client's innocence. All he need to is prove the Prosecuting's attorney's evidence against his client is suspect or lacking.

I'm already done that.

The onus is on the one providing the evidence to prove BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

Because you can't prove a negative.

That's why our court system is based on innocent until proved guilty.

Now let's take this case. This poster, posts a bunch of photos and accuses the Tea Party of being racists, etc, based the evidence of his photos.

*I* like a defense attorney point out the evidence against my "client" the tea party, is suspect because of a defect in the evidence (in that one of the photos is fake, not from a tea party, being from 2003, and there is no evidence or url provided to prove the validity of the rest.)

The onus is on the prosecutor, the person who posted the photos, to prove otherwise, by providing evidence for the validity of these photos.

He hasn't done that, nor I doubt will he, because it's pretty obvious, the photos are not legit.

If they were, he would have simply provided evidence of their source, as I did with the photos I produced for left wing protests.

Now those simple facts of logic and how evidence works aren't going to change because you keep having an internet tantrum.

Sorry, but the onus is on the person who posted the photos. Get over it. It's not going to change just because you keep throwing yourself on the floor, throwing a tantrum and demanding to have your way.

Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.

The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.

The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.

Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.

So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.

Why is it so hard for you to keep up?

Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.

Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.

WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.

I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.

Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?

 

[drsmith1072]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

WOW he wrote a paper while in college. Any proof that said proposal has been enacted or is this more of the standard scare tactics and fear mongering of the right??

 

[CMike]

Aww poor samurai can't engage in an hoenst debate so he has to stoop to attacking me as he tries so desperately to demonize and discredit me with baseless personal attacks.

The sad thing is that you once again try to DISHONESTLY spin to CYA. I am NOT asking you to prove that the photos are real or fake. the FACT is that YOU made the FALSE claim that since one is fake that all are fake and that is an ASSUMPTION that you haven't proven and keep trying to avoid. One has has NO bearing on the others and it was dishonest for YOU to make that argument. The fac that you continue to try to dishonestly claim that I am asking you to prove that they are fake further exposes your dishonesty.

The funny thing is that you counter your own claim when you try to bring in "innocent until proven guilty because based on that principle the photos are presumed real until proven fake.

Although it is hilarious that you now admit that our system is based on innocent until proven guilty when earlier that didn't matter to you when you admitted that wiretapping innocent people was "wonderful" becuase they were proven innocent after the fact.

So why is it that you can't focus on what I actually said instead of the false argument that you continually and dishonestly try to attribute to me? I am not asking you to prove that they are fake I am merely pointing out how YOU claimed that since one was fake that all were fake. That is not true and is not an honest way to debate.

Why is it so hard for you to keep up?

Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.

Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.

WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.

I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.

Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?

I understand well

Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.

Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.

Do you comprehend?

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

WOW he wrote a paper while in college. Any proof that said proposal has been enacted or is this more of the standard scare tactics and fear mongering of the right??

Perhaps you missed the part that this paper was written in 2008?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you lefties come up with fakes, it's not up to us to prove your left wing blog doctored photos fakes. It's up to you lefties to prove that they are legitimiate.

Any schmuck can photo shop photos or dress people up and make a photo.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to prove that your crap is legitimate.

WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.

I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.

Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?

I understand well

Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.

Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.

Do you comprehend?

cmike, you pretend conservatives do exactly "pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up", thus you are merely projecting your own self image: you are deceitful, you have been caught lying and make up things, then you want to blame everybody else.

You are

 

[chanel]

http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdSUuzkUnz

These young saboteurs should really stop smoking so much pot. Interferes with their acting skills. lol

 

[Foxfyre]

Eyeblast.tv

These young saboteurs should really stop smoking so much pot. Interferes with their acting skills. lol

 

[ABikerSailor]

Are you sure it's pot and not something else?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

You are indicating that government should not protect itself against false conspiracy theory groups. Really? In other words, the reactionary wingnuts want to say whatever they want and not be held accountable. Not going to happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't followed this thread closely, but has anybody mentioned Cass Sunstein who is President Obama's chief for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?

This is one of those obscure positions that rarely makes it onto the media's radar, but which holds a great deal of power and influence.

But in light of the thesis of this thread, perhaps we should look more closely at Mr. Sunstein's job and a bit of his resume.

His job, among other things, is to review and keep track of 'the message'.

His resume includes the following as reported in Salon.com, hardly a repository of radical conservative thought:

Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).

The whole article here:
Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

You are indicating that government should not protect itself against false conspiracy theory groups. Really? In other words, the reactionary wingnuts want to say whatever they want and not be held accountable. Not going to happen.

Perhaps you could spend some time reflecting on how you came to that conclusion from what I posted and what you quoted. Your observation has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted and what you quoted.

In formal debate vernacular, your conclusion is referred to as non sequitur.

 

[CMike]

WOW another moron who lacks the ability to comprehend what is written.

I put the key phrase of my post in bold type. If you took the time to read instead of merely rushing to defend a fellow dishoenst hack then you would have understood that I am not asking him to prove that the photos are fake but instead calling him out for his dishoenst claim that besause one was fake all are fake.

Do you understand it yet or are you still trying to catch up?

I understand well

Since it's already been proven that your side has a pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up, all the so called "photos" that your side posts are tainted.

Therefore, unless you can prove something is legitimate, the assumption is that it's fake.

Do you comprehend?

cmike, you pretend conservatives do exactly "pattern of lying, deception, and making shit up", thus you are merely projecting your own self image: you are deceitful, you have been caught lying and make up things, then you want to blame everybody else.

You are

Really? What photos did we make up?

 

[CMike]

Are you sure it's pot and not something else?

You are the expert.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well **** Mike..........you're right, 8 years as a U.S. Navy Drug and Alcohol Program Adviser kinda means that I do know something about that.

You on the other hand, demonstrate DAILY that you don't know shit other than GOP talking points you pick up from FUCKED News and the Tea Bagger Party.

Shit......your head is so far up the GOP's ass that if they took a sudden turn your neck would snap.