Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They’re Here! Obama Disinformation Agents Are Actively Posting Against Critics

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Koka
 

You're ability to argue or make your point clearly and objectively counts for a great deal more than crying disinfo just because you fail to convince those that disagree with you.


But isn't the obverse true, as well?

Those who post, without clarity and objectivity, blatantly false statements
invite such a label, no? (regardless of affiliation or ideology)

jw




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
FTC is actively patrolling for "endorsements" by bloggers.
www.ftc.gov...

That is false. The FTC may begin patrolling blogs on December 1st, but we are not sure about that yet because we have not discussed that. Through your misdirection we have been discussing whether any of us right here are federal agents. You are spreading false information and that is what you have complained about.

Originally posted by jdub297
DOJ is employing bloggers to counter criticism.
www.doj.gov...

The DOJ is employing bloggers. The idea that it is to counter criticism is your opinion and it may very well be an accurate opinion but in no way does it indicate that any ats members are government agents.

Originally posted by jdub297
Many of the most vitriolic, illegal(plagiarist), and untruthful recent posts have come from newer members who cannot or refuse to provide sources, cites or links to outlandish, repeated nonsense.

1. I concider your baseless accusations against other ATS members to be vitriolic.
2. Where has any plagiarism been committed?
3. You are the only one making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents.
4. You are a newer member.
5. You do not provide valid sources and you make repeated accusations which are baseless nonsense.

Originally posted by jdub297
Almost 100% of the conduct described above is directed against threads critical of Obama and his administration.

You need to begin to be honest with yourself if you think your thread is about the Obama administration. It's about other members on this board.... "They're Here!"



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Koka
 

You're ability to argue or make your point clearly and objectively counts for a great deal more than crying disinfo just because you fail to convince those that disagree with you.


But isn't the obverse true, as well?

Those who post, without clarity and objectivity, blatantly false statements
invite such a label, no? (regardless of affiliation or ideology)

jw



I would say that those that post in such manner are far more likely to be ignorant and are posting in a uneducated reactionary manner. If they were disinfo agents I would tend to believe they would post an argument to their reasoning, failure to do so just requires you to ignore the post or at most call "Troll".



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by finnegan

Originally posted by jdub297
FTC is actively patrolling for "endorsements" by bloggers.
www.ftc.gov...

That is false.


Nope. The FTC states that the "guidelines" will be amended to more accurately reflect their new enforcement position. FTC "Regulations" (as published in the CFR) and actions remain unchanged. They ARE actively enforcing, now, you can't argue, "Hey, I didn't know."


Originally posted by jdub297
Many of the most vitriolic, illegal(plagiarist), and untruthful recent posts have come from newer members who cannot or refuse to provide sources, cites or links to outlandish, repeated nonsense.

1. I concider your baseless accusations against other ATS members to be vitriolic.
2. Where has any plagiarism been committed?

Your "conciderations" are irrelevant.

I pointed out to a member his blatant penchant for plagiarism just last week. Post lifted straight from multiple sources. I even gave him the correct cites, authors, links and publication dates in my reply. (left his post standing to prove it if you want to look)

Not a problem? Why don't you check with "Springer" and "Skeptic Overlord?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...


3. You are the only one making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents.


Hardly. I've seen new members toss that around many times.


4. You are a newer member.


And? I provide cites and authority to back up my statements. I have a profile.

The worst "offenders" lack.


5. You do not provide valid sources and you make repeated accusations which are baseless nonsense.


I provide sources. Your asessment of their "validity" is yours.

I never post "repeated accusations which are baseless nonsense."
This is a lie.

That is ad hominem and adds nothing to whatever position you may have been attempting to validate.
You should know that.



Originally posted by jdub297
Almost 100% of the conduct described above is directed against threads critical of Obama and his administration.

You need to begin to be honest with yourself if you think your thread is about the Obama administration. It's about other members on this board.... "They're Here!"


This is another lie.
No one has to be a "member" to post here.

"Anonymous poster" is a regular guest to this site.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by finnegan

Originally posted by jdub297
FTC is actively patrolling for "endorsements" by bloggers.
www.ftc.gov...

That is false. The FTC may begin patrolling blogs on December 1st, but we are not sure about that yet because we have not discussed that. Through your misdirection we have been discussing whether any of us right here are federal agents. You are spreading false information and that is what you have complained about.


Nope. The FTC states that the "guidelines" will be amended to more accurately reflect their new enforcement position. FTC "Regulations" (as published in the CFR) and actions remain unchanged. They ARE actively enforcing, now, you can't argue, "Hey, I didn't know."


Here is my source: FTCnotice

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 255 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of adoption of revised Guides. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 2009.

Please supply your source which states this action is already in place before Dec 1st and it would be nice if we could someday discuss whether they will be patrolling blogs or acting on consumer alerts but that evidently is not the purpose of your thread.


Originally posted by jdub297
Many of the most vitriolic, illegal(plagiarist), and untruthful recent posts have come from newer members who cannot or refuse to provide sources, cites or links to outlandish, repeated nonsense.

Originally posted by finnegan
1. I concider your baseless accusations against other ATS members to be vitriolic.
2. Where has any plagiarism been committed?


Your "conciderations" are irrelevant.

I pointed out to a member his blatant penchant for plagiarism just last week. Post lifted straight from multiple sources. I even gave him the correct cites, authors, links and publication dates in my reply. (left his post standing to prove it if you want to look)

Not a problem? Why don't you check with "Springer" and "Skeptic Overlord?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is good that you are helping to stop plagiarism, but that does not make my considerations irrelevant. You never even mentioned this situation before, you simply put forth your idea that other members were working for the government. Plagiarism by the way, does not prove that.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by finnegan
3. You are the only one making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents.


Hardly. I've seen new members toss that around many times.

If new members have stated many times that you are making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents then it may be possible that you are using the disinfo card too much.


4. You are a newer member.


Originally posted by jdub297
And? I provide cites and authority to back up my statements. I have a profile.

The worst "offenders" lack.

I don't have a profile. What's your point? Are you calling me a government agent? You continually refer to new members without profiles, I guess because they have wronged you so bad in the past, but that would be an issue you should report to the moderators. Personally it seems to me disinfo can come from anyone, no matter what the profile says or how long they have been a member. It is our duty to challenge those when they come up, but not to create a straw man argument so we can engage in character assassination against an entire group.



I provide sources. Your asessment of their "validity" is yours.

I never post "repeated accusations which are baseless nonsense."
This is a lie.

That is ad hominem and adds nothing to whatever position you may have been attempting to validate.
You should know that.

Your sources are not valid because no where do they provide any link to any official or corroboratory piece of information. They are all highly opinionated. The only quotes they use are quotes from members of other right wing blogs. Two of them in fact link back to one of your right wing sources with nothing but a long opinionated statement about it.

You repeatedly accuse new members without profiles of being government agents. The reason it is baseless is because it is your opinion. You provide no evidence of it. Have any of them ever told you they were working for Obama? If you have confidential information on them you could probably share it with a mod.

Ad hominem would be grouping new members without a profile into a number of possible government agent suspects thereby negating any comment they make. You may think what i say to you is ad hominem, but I am merely asking you to be honest. Stating they are here on this forum, and I have heard some people state they are posting on this thread, requires you to back that up.


Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by finnegan

Originally posted by jdub297
Almost 100% of the conduct described above is directed against threads critical of Obama and his administration.

You need to begin to be honest with yourself if you think your thread is about the Obama administration. It's about other members on this board.... "They're Here!"


This is another lie.
No one has to be a "member" to post here.

"Anonymous poster" is a regular guest to this site.

Let me quote your first words so you can see exactly who your thread is referring to since you seem to want to assassinate my character by falsely calling me a liar.

Originally posted by jdub297
Has anyone noticed the sudden presence of new members



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnegan
That is false. The FTC may begin patrolling blogs on December 1st, but we are not sure about that yet because we have not discussed that. Through your misdirection we have been discussing whether any of us right here are federal agents. You are spreading false information and that is what you have complained about.

Here is my source: FTCnotice

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 255 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of adoption of revised Guides. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 2009.

Please supply your source which states this action is already in place before Dec 1st and it would be nice if we could someday discuss whether they will be patrolling blogs or acting on consumer alerts but that evidently is not the purpose of your thread.


You make it quite obvious you do not understand the difference between the law, which FTC enforces, and the "Guides" which advise people of what the FTC is doing.

Source? U.S. Government, Highlands High School; U.S. Government 101, University of Texas; United States Congress, 15 U.S.C. 45.

Oh, and the FTC:


The Guides represent administrative interpretations concerning the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. They are advisory in nature, and intended to give guidance to the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with Section 5.


www.ftc.gov...

The LAW is unchanged. The FTC administration and the "czar" who enforces it HAVE. Thus, new "Guides" are warranted to be fair.

They already have the authority per "the FTC Act, section 5.

Now, you can't say, "I didn't kow that" when they come get you.

Class dismissed.


If new members have stated many times that you are making untruthful posts by proclaiming other members as government agents


They are not. I do not. Prove otherwise.

Can't, can you? I said other members have "tossed around" the 'agent' stuff. Never said why or against who.

Your wishful thinking clouds your reason.


You continually refer to new members without profiles


There's nothing "repeatedly" or "continually" anywhere is my posts.
Prove otherwise. You can't

YOU are repeating the same baseless statements.

Just look at this thread, and see how each of your posts contains the same crap.
Over and again.
Baseless and baselesser.


Personally it seems to me disinfo can come from anyone, no matter what the profile says or how long they have been a member.


OK. Here, I'll repeat myself:. The unfounded, unsourced, un-cited nonsense, and plagiarized statements are the KEYS. Profiles and membership are just additional factors.

You just don't get it it, do you?


It is our duty to challenge those when they come up, but not to create a straw man argument so we can engage in character assassination against an entire group.


Most character assasinations I've seen have been self-inflicted. I've made no scattered personal accusations, AS YOU ACCUSE. Yuo take the elements I described and set them apart.

That is not what I said. That is misrepresentation and misdirection.

Add up all the pieces, and it may mean something. Individually, out of context, they are meaningless.

Ever heard of the concept that "the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts?" (probably not, or I wouldn't be having to explain this to you)


Taking any one or two parts out of their context is dishonest, and proves nothing. Except gross sensitivity to certain parts.


You repeatedly accuse new members without profiles of being government agents.


Really? Where? How many times? What threads? SHOW ME!


The reason it is baseless is because it is your opinion. You provide no evidence of it.


Then, I'm equally entitled to hold "your opinion" of my sources as "baseless." Even steven, no? It works both ways; that's why I said your "concideration" means nothing to me. It is an opinion. Yours.


Ad hominem would be grouping new members without a profile into a number of possible government agent suspects thereby negating any comment they make.


No. "Ad hominem" is a personal attack on the author, intended to discredit him personally, rather than his argument.

Source? English, Highlands High School; English 101, Philosophy 101, UT; Merriam-Webster, "New World Dictionary."

jw

[edit on 13-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You use this as your source to prove that the FTC is monitoring blogs:

Originally posted by jdub297 Source? U.S. Government, Highlands High School; U.S. Government 101, University of Texas; United States Congress, 15 U.S.C. 45.
Please provide a link to this source and show where it states that the FTC is currently monitoring blogs.



The Guides represent administrative interpretations]/b] concerning the application of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising. They are advisory in nature, and intended to give guidance to the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with Section 5.
I guess you are using this as evidence too but it does not state anywhere here that the FTC is currently monitoring blogs. Please indicate for me the exact location where you see this information as I did for you on my source notation.

Now I don't know what you were talking about when you referred to new members tossing around allegations, but if you were referring to them doing it to other members it was hard to tell because you have talked about them doing it to you before. I would have simply preferred if you left the whole new members thing out of the discussion.

Originally posted by finnegan
You repeatedly accuse new members without profiles of being government agents.


Originally posted by jdub297
There's nothing "repeatedly" or "continually" anywhere is my posts.
Prove otherwise. You can't

YOU are repeating the same baseless statements.



Originally posted by jdub297
Has anyone noticed the sudden presence of new members


Originally posted by jdub297
I didn't see that a year ago. People actually had well-thought out arguments


Originally posted by jdub297
ATS didn't have this problem a year ago.


Originally posted by jdub297
Many of the most vitriolic, illegal(plagiarist), and untruthful recent posts have come from newer members


Originally posted by jdub297
I've seen new members toss that around many times.


Originally posted by jdub297
generally lacking any profile information


Originally posted by jdub297
The lack of profile bit is just one piece of a larger puzzle.


Originally posted by jdub297
I have a profile.
The worst "offenders" lack.



Originally posted by jdub297
Often, the same claims or statements are made over and again


Originally posted by jdub297
Sometimes, the posters do little more than repeat themselves


Originally posted by jdub297
You’ll see a huge quote, followed by a repetition of previous assertions


Originally posted by jdub297
But, when you see the same preposterous statements repeated regardles of source, reality and truth, you get kind of curious as to what kind of person embraces such tactics


Now about your sources you stated:

Originally posted by jdub297
Then, I'm equally entitled to hold "your opinion" of my sources as "baseless." Even steven, no? It works both ways; that's why I said your "concideration" means nothing to me. It is an opinion. Yours.

This is true you don't have to believe me. But I can only hope that you will look through your sources and determine for yourself whether they contain evidence to support your claims. If you find anything could you please post a reference link highlighting the particular piece of evidence.

That whole ad hominem thing is getting repetitive too, i'm just going to forget about that.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
reply to post by jdub297
 


Really I am not sure if they are disinfo agents, but I get a feeling this place is like 75% liberal and maybe 25% conservative/independent. Maybe it is all non-american posters who are already live in socialist or communist countries that want to pull us into the fray. I am not saying they are doing it out of evil intent, but they actually think that is a good way to live because they have never know what freedom is really like. I remember what it was like from 20 or so years ago, and I bet that wasn't half of the freedom my great granparents felt.

[edit on 9-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

I am reminded of two of my favorite quotes:

1. Never assign to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity!

2. Just because you are paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 


As for your reply: See, just like I described!

As for your inability to understand U.S. gov't., I've given the same source twice for you: Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. 45.

jw

p.s.: you know that incomplete selctive quotes not only are dishonest, they violate the T&Cs, don't you?

Of course, you CAN'T quote my entire answers to your statements, or everyone would see how far off base you really are.

Distort away!

[edit on 13-10-2009 by jdub297]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Here is point number one because no matter how many circles we have to run around this is what after 7 pages you have still failed to prove. You have yet to show evidence in any of your sources in your original post where any of your claims have been substantiated. You made the claim so you have the burden of proof. Maybe that sounds repetitive to you, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through. If necessary we can examine each one of your sources individually and show where each one is based solely on opinion and does not even provide a link to anything official or any substantive piece of evidence or even quote anyone outside of the right wing blogosphere.


As for your false claim that FTC is currently patrolling blogs you have given the same source which is Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. 45 which does not pertain to blogs. That's why the new guide pertaining to blogs is issued for Dec 1st. So we can only assume you had no basis for your claim the FTC is monitoring blogs. If you do have any information about this topic though you can discuss it here link, which is a thread about the FTC and blogs, not a slanted misrepresentation about the fungus among us.


ps I only proved to you that you repeat yourself because you told me to. Don't ask me to do something and then get upset about it. And don't give me a line about choosing words in quotes when you've been doing it all along. Not that I care, if I want to make something known which you do not quote properly I'll just "repeat" it.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
FTC is actively patrolling for "endorsements" by bloggers.


Personally I would not use your sources for information, but if it is the only thing you would believe I will quote from the washington times editorial for you.
link

You may have won $10 million dollars!!! Or not, but the same federal agency that can't stop those dishonest sweepstakes mailings wants the right to supervise everything bloggers, Facebookers, tweeters and practically anyone else writes on the Internet starting in December.

As you can see even your source says that it is starting in December.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 

As for your false claim that FTC is currently patrolling blogs you have given the same source which is Section 5 of the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C. 45 which does not pertain to blogs. That's why the new guide pertaining to blogs is issued for Dec 1st.Obiously, you do not understand the workings of government.


The FTC cannot fairly begin ENFORCEMENT of blog endorsements absent notice. Hence, the new "Guides."

The AUTHORITY to conduct the necessary searches, monitoring, and surveillance is the U.S.Code.

Arguably, the FTC has ALWAYS (since the last amendement of the FTC Act) had this power; just chose to use it under the Obama administration.

Congress gives the authority; the Admin. Agencies put it into action.

Do you contend that the FTC, as of Dec. 1, is going to start-up from ZERO?

If so, then go back to sleep. WAIT for it to happen.

As one who's been on the inside, I know that the groundwork has already been laid, tested, and implemented. It won't be enforced until people get "the message."

It is always "too late" when you discover the gov't is doing anything! The ramp-up takes months.

If you didn't think this was significant or true, you wouldn't have started the "FTC" thread already, would you?

'Nuff said.

Go back to sleep.

jw

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
this sickens me!
his own little team of brainwashing little disinfo trolls heh?
ill be sure to make short work of these fools!
they cant do NOTHING,most of the population here allready knows and hates obama enough



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

I started the FTC thread so that the issue could be discussed and you are welcome to express your opinion there, I have no problem with opinions. My problem starts when someone launches a thread constituted as nothing more than a hit-job against another group or other people on the forum, be they members or visitors and does not back up their claim with evidence.
Anyone who posted in opposition to this topic was indirectly labeled as one of them, or as a troll with nothing better to do but boost their own ego. Personally I feel anyone to point that out and recieve flames, which they know will happen either directly or indirectly, is damaging to their ego if anything. We are so quick to eat our own that we can't begin to discuss real issues.


[edit on 14-10-2009 by finnegan]

[edit on 14-10-2009 by finnegan]



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 

Anyone who posted in opposition to this topic was indirectly labeled as one of them, or as a troll with nothing better to do but boost their own ego. Personally I feel anyone to point that out and recieve flames, which they know will happen either directly or indirectly, is damaging to their ego if anything. We are so quick to eat our own that we can't begin to discuss real issues.

No one labelled any replies, except you.

No sources, no cites, no authority? Add: new member, no profile.

Take your lumps. It works IN ORDER! Post trash without support, expect criticism.

When personal fears and suspicions cloud our perception of the events transpiring in 'real time,' we lose sight.

Fear and anticipation of future conduct adds nothing to our lives.

Pissing and moaning about what might transpire, or what "will happen either directly or indirectly" is wasted time.

Face the facts:

FTC has the legal authority to monitor internet blogs.

FTC has new leadership that intends to be more 'activist' than prior leadership.

FTC announces its intention to begin ENFORCING the FTC Act in ways that no one ever has.

Does it really matter whether it happens next month, or if it has been happening since the summer?

jw



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Point number 1: Show me where your sources have evidence to back up your claim disinfo agents are here. You made the claim, you have the burden of proof, show the evidence. Your sensationalist argument does zero to prove this, it only serves to inflame.

You made a long rant that adds nothing important to the conversation. But I would like to point out that you misrepresented what I said. If you made the statement accurately it would have been "no one indirectly labelled any replies, except you" and you would be wrong. I don't know if you did that on purpose or in error but it does not aid the discussion.

What matters is that you participate in the discussion with honesty and that means when you state something as fact you have to back it up.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 
You either missed the "news" or decided to ignore it.

Gov't Admits Spying on Blogs and Forums
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let me see if I understand your position.

"The government will not do anything it does not disclose to the public."

OK. I concede. You win. The government will TELL US when it is intruding on our privacy.

Sleep tight.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


My position changes according to the environment I am in.

When I join a thread that asks a sincere question if disinfo agents are here, and it does not profess to have some kind of hidden information on them which it is lacking, and it does not use sources which are nothing but opinion when the author could have just expressed his opinion in the first place, and it does not attempt to group people into possible agents by characterising them according to any particular political beliefs or pofile information my position becomes yeah, there might be disinfo agents here. And there may be some opinions that a particular group is guilty of it, but at least the stage would be set as an area for open debate.

When I see a thread that engages in nothing but divisive controlling accusatory politics my position becomes why the hell are we engaging in divisive controlling accusatory politics? We would be playing right into the hands of anyone that is attempting to destroy a forum for open debate.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by finnegan
 

When I see a thread that engages in nothing but divisive controlling accusatory politics my position becomes why the hell are we engaging in divisive controlling accusatory politics?


Great.
The gov't doesn't explicitly SAY they are torturing.
The gov't doesn't explicitly SAY they are taxing your utility biils.
The gov't doesn't explicitly SAY they are monitoring Internet traffic.

Therefor, it isn't happening.

Sleep tight.
Baaaa.
Baaa.

jw



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Your point is confusing but it appears as though you believe government information is untrusworthy. I have no problem with that but your opinionated sources are all based on openly available government documents which they do not even point to.

There is no secret government action revealed by you. If it does exist you are doing more to cover it up by directing all the attention to people who don't agree with you, or people who like the president, or people with certain characteristics in their profile.

The reason we know about government conspiracies is not because some guy said, "Hey, I don't like what he said to me. He must work for the government." We know about conspiracies because we have evidence of them, therefore they are happening.






top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join