White House Encroaching on First Amendment

I can see the slippery slope this is sending us down. First it starts off by forwarding e-mails of "disinformation" about the health care plan. Then it goes into to forwarding e-mails of "disinformation" about this new bill we have lined up in congress, then it evolves into can you also send us their address and phone numbers along with the forwarded e-mails. Then it turns into the jackboots showing up to your house and questioning why you are sending these e-mails.

It is like the pot and the frog. You heat the pan up slowly so the frog doesn't jump out. If they want the flow of "disinformation" to stop then they should write the bills in common english and not legalese and give us all a chance to actually read and understand the thing.

Slippery slippery slope they are starting on. I forgot who said it, but it goes something like:

"First they came for the communist and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialist and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the jews and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew. Then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak out for me."

So everybody that thinks this is a good idea in anyway shape or form you need to remember you are somewhere on their list. You might not be at the top, you might be at the very bottom, but they will eventually come for you.

This is history repeating itself.

I'm not a truly experienced historian, so I'm hoping that anyone out there might educate me about something.

While dissent is essentially a constant companion to governance, how frequently has the Federal government of the United States embarked on a campaign to organize the population towards the goal of identifying a particular discourse among citizens?

I would refine the dialogue by insisting that we keep this in light of 1,000 page plan to define the operational nature of an industry; but to do so invites partisan rhetoric, in which I will not engage.

I call your attention to the question in regards to this OP. (Thanks S&F). And for the sake of an 'education' free from ideology I repeat it:

While dissent is essentially a constant companion to governance, how frequently has the Federal government of the United States embarked on a campaign to organize the population towards the goal of identifying a particular discourse among citizens?

I am hoping to discuss the nature of free speech.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

In order for us to have real change we all need to agree that talking down, or putting a negative spin on government decisions benefit no one. We shouldn't have the right to seek out the negative in things, we clearly are not intelligent enough to be afforded the freedom of speech. I agree with this program and people that are dissident should be dealt with. How can we move forward if we have people trying to stop the Change we have to believe in?

Would be proposing to put a positive spin on government decisions be just as unacceptable? In this very moment, I'm rather at a loss in how to do such a thing and have it sound believable. It could be the ale.

Dissidents should be dealt with-- with ale! Here, here! Toast to the dissidents!

The change I have to believe in isn't worth the dime it's written on. The change I want to believe in won't come until the bhoddisatva comes and bangs on everyone's crown shakra with a ballpeen hammer.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


That is what makes this story so unbelievable and your comparison to the frog and pot is dead-on.

Slowly get the public used to these sorts of things so when the water is really boiling, it's too late.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I'm not a truly experienced historian, so I'm hoping that anyone out there might educate me about something.

While dissent is essentially a constant companion to governance, how frequently has the Federal government of the United States embarked on a campaign to organize the population towards the goal of identifying a particular discourse among citizens?

I would refine the dialogue by insisting that we keep this in light of 1,000 page plan to define the operational nature of an industry; but to do so invites partisan rhetoric, in which I will not engage.

I call your attention to the question in regards to this OP. (Thanks S&F). And for the sake of an 'education' free from ideology I repeat it:

While dissent is essentially a constant companion to governance, how frequently has the Federal government of the United States embarked on a campaign to organize the population towards the goal of identifying a particular discourse among citizens?

I am hoping to discuss the nature of free speech.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Maxmars]

Great post! Free speech, in the way I understand it, allows any citizen the right to publically or privately criticize anyone (public official or other) without fear of retribution for those criticisisms. While I don't think that crticizing BHO or his plans will land you in a "re-education" camp at the moment, I do think down the road it will lead to something that lands you on a list.

Remember... If being a vet returning from combat lands you on a "terror watch list" for possibly being apart of a right-wing extremism group, what does that say about those that don't agree with the gov 12 months from now.

American Veterans on terror watch list

Originally posted by Bratac

Originally posted by orderedchaos
As to whether or not the "tattling" on our neighbors infringes on free speech can be determined as to why the info is garnered, and what they plan to do with the info.

See? This is where my confusion comes in. How can we charge infringement on free speech because of what we suspect might happen down the road? That would be like charging murder because someone buys a gun.

Unless and until a law is made that prohibits people sending emails about the health care plan, then free speech is alive and well.

"That would be like charging murder because someone buys a gun."

I almost feel into this analogy until I realized where it is flawed. If that "someone" had a history of violence and was known to use the weapon in unsafe and deadly manners, then you would pay much more attention to this person and they would not get the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the US Government has the "gun" and they haven't done a very good job with it before. Now the new prez has taken that gun and is waiving it around in a crowded place and asking people to report those that don't feel he is being safe. This prez appears to have an even worse ability to handle the gun. Does that mean you will get shot for your thoughts? Maybe not yet. But down the road, with all the history of unsafe and deadly mistakes that come from him holding that gun, you really don't want to let your guard down.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

The fact that you question the President of the United States screams racism. You cannot question the authority in charge. You need to set aside your racist thoughts and feelings to see the true nature of how wonderful things will be.

The government is only implementing this program to find domestic terrorists, you have nothing to fear unless you disagree with their programs, if you do well. You need to reconsider how you think and realize you are wrong and they are right in all things.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Doom and Gloom]

I don't believe Doom and Gloom is just a regular guy. That speech you made is pure unadulterated mind controlled anti-freedom hogwash. In case some of you haven't caught on yet, any time someone comes from left field and insinuates racism into a conversation that has nothing to do with race, they are playing you with neurolinguistic programming (hate speech) directed at your emotions not your reason...

If you, Doom and Gloom, believe what you wrote and are not actually working as a disinfo, agent provocateur, then I feel sorry for you when the real Americans find you out.

reply to post by Hazelnut


Back on page 1 or so, he got me to buy off on it also. He doesn't buy into it (speaking from the posts) and was seeing how long I would continue to buy into it. Take the opposite of what he is saying as he is enjoying getting those rattled up..

Thanks Doom and Gloom for pointing out how little people read the entire thread before launching into a knee-jerk response.

To the point.

This action isn't a direct attack on 1st Amendment rights, but it does stink of strong-arming. Like a "feel free to say whatever, but we're keeping an eye on you". It's pure and simple intimidation.

In case you don't think this has happed before in the US and not just NAZI Germany. (sorry I don't have better sites, but these will do)

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by WickettheRabbit


The more people that contribute to this thread, it confirms my fears that it has already been put into motion. The monitoring, the watching..... Like it has been said already, the water isn't boiling yet, just getting warm enough to be comfortable.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
reply to post by Roadblockx

 

There are a select few on this board that will bash you to death over anything negative said about the President. It sickens me. It scares me. In most cases if you question him you will be labeled a racist. They will stretch as far as they need to connect the dots.

This is a terrible turn of events and further erosion of our rights and liberties, yet by me saying that I am in fact a domestic terrorist. Common sense is not so common any more. Assimilation is the only option, so I join them

Wow do you have a victim's complex or what.

This has been in the alternative media for awhile and it's very strange and frightening. I'd really like this idea explained why it was put there by someone who's pushing this bill even if it gets struck down. This health care plan just continues to devolve into more and more frightening non-sense.

reply to post by CuriousSkeptic


I am disappointed that they didn't spend more time reading through the whole thing. Why rush through a vote? Is it that bad? What's the hurry and who is pushing it and why are they? Maybe I am missing something.

Wow do you have a victim's complex or what.

This has been in the alternative media for awhile and it's very strange and frightening. I'd really like this idea explained why it was put there by someone who's pushing this bill even if it gets struck down. This health care plan just continues to devolve into more and more frightening non-sense.

I do not have any complex at all.

People need to realize they are being played the fool. Standing along partisan lines divides us. These issues should not be Repub/Demcrat. The real issue should be We the People against the Government removal of our rights and liberties. People are so full of hate yet they are afraid to channel it properly, instead they will spew it all over their fellow citizens. Wasted energy.

What has been in the alternative media?

I suppose I should thank you for adding me as a foe.



[edit on 7-8-2009 by Doom and Gloom]

***UPDATE***

illegal act by white house

He doesn't need to ask. I have been doing this for a few months now. As a matter of fact I began compiling information for just this purpose before we elected Obama POTUS.

The right is going down never to return.

Originally posted by Bratac

Originally posted by orderedchaos
As to whether or not the "tattling" on our neighbors infringes on free speech can be determined as to why the info is garnered, and what they plan to do with the info.

See? This is where my confusion comes in. How can we charge infringement on free speech because of what we suspect might happen down the road? That would be like charging murder because someone buys a gun.

Unless and until a law is made that prohibits people sending emails about the health care plan, then free speech is alive and well.

The only thing the government could benefit from gathering info on opposers, would be to marginalize the opposers benefits in the future, no?

Originally posted by Roadblockx
reply to post by titorite

 

D@MN!!! Tell me I didn't get punked on that.....

My jaw was hanging open -
I was getting punked too.

Originally posted by spinkyboo

Originally posted by Roadblockx
reply to post by titorite

 

D@MN!!! Tell me I didn't get punked on that.....

My jaw was hanging open -
I was getting punked too.

Awesome! Glad I wasn't the only one. He must have done that before as it was way too natural..

Originally posted by mhc_70

Originally posted by Bratac

Originally posted by orderedchaos
As to whether or not the "tattling" on our neighbors infringes on free speech can be determined as to why the info is garnered, and what they plan to do with the info.

See? This is where my confusion comes in. How can we charge infringement on free speech because of what we suspect might happen down the road? That would be like charging murder because someone buys a gun.

Unless and until a law is made that prohibits people sending emails about the health care plan, then free speech is alive and well.

The only thing the government could benefit from gathering info on opposers, would be to marginalize the opposers benefits in the future, no?

Exactly. Why would the gov be so worried about what the citizens were saying unless it was just the beginning of something more sinister.

Originally posted by Roadblockx


Can you just imagine where this is going next?? This is going to overflow to websites like this where people will send your posts on to the goon squad for not supporting the prez...

Even at his darkest moments, Bush never tried to get you to rat on your friends.

Wow!

What a disingenuous accusation. He's looking for areas which need to be clarified, not asking you to rat on your friends.

Is this really all there is left for the anti-obamatrons? Lying?