Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites , page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 65 times

reply posted on 17-5-2010 @ 10:44 PM by Portugoal

So much for Freedom of the Press.

Check out the thread pertaining to the law that was just signed by Obama today. This is ridiculous.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 12:01 AM by links234

reply to post by Vinveezy

Everyone seems to look too deep into things.

Having said that, what's wrong with the idea of having both sides of a story easily accessible to an audience? I'm going to throw this out there; if you get all of your news from a single source, you're probably ignorant, jaded and susceptible to misinformation. There is only black and white with you, there is no gray.

Promoting information and expanding debate is taking away the freedom of speech and press? How about allowing it to happen is encouraging the freedom of ignorance? Completly anti-thema to the concept of ATS.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 12:22 AM by brainwrek

reply to post by links234

Ever heard of the 1st Amendment?

Seriously, your question implies you havent.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 12:50 AM by nikiano

reply to post by Vinveezy

Scary.

And what is scarier is that I was listening to Glen Beck the other day, and he reported that this same "information czar" talked about putting government spies on conspiracy theory websites. They were supposed to "embed" themselves, and blend in, and do disinformation, etc...

And after I heard that, I yelled at the top of my lungs "I knew it!" That story Glen Beck did pretty much confirms what I've been suspecting about ATS for the last few years. I knew we had embedded disinfo agents on here. It's not hard to guess which ones.

What bothers me is that often times, I find the moderators actually defending and protecting the disinfo agents.

However, what is even scarier than mandatory propaganda, and embedded government disinfo agents on ATS, is that when I started posting on ATS again these last few weeks, all of a sudden, the green light on my web camera went on. Out of nowhere. And only when I was on ATS.

Now, this also happened to me about a year ago, but I thought I was just imagining things. I covered up my webcam, though, just to be on the safe side, because I was a little worried that I wasn't imagining it.

Then, a few months ago, I thoguht that I was being ridiculous for being so paranoid that someone would hack into my webcame. I mean, geez.... So, I took the covering off the webcam. And what do you know....a few weeks after I became a "regular poster" on ATS again, the green light on my webcam started going on again....ONLY when I was on ATS. (It's supposed to only come on when the camera is in use.)

Hmmmm....

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think there's more going on that propaganda and disinfo here on ATS. I think we have government hackers hacking into computers of people who the government might consider "anti-government."

Oh, and by the way, for all those disinfo agents and government spies here on ATS, I have a message for you:

Go ahead and spy. Go ahead and post disinformation. Go ahead... be a traitor to your country. See how long you can sleep at night, knowing that you are helping this country to become exactly the opposite of what it was created for.

America was supposed to be a haven from persecution....and now look what we are becoming. When you signed up to work for the government, did you envision yourself working to persecute those who share different political views from the current president? With all the terrible things happening in this country, do you think that this is really a good use of the government's time?

The excuse "I was only doing my job" doesn't hold up against treason. It doesn't hold up against crimes against humanity.

Oh, sure....right now you're just spying and collecting information. But what comes next? Picking people up in the middle of night? Shipping political dissidents down to Guantanamo, or secret CIA prisons? Why? Because we disagree with the presidents and their policies? Because we are angry about all the corruption in our country? Because we see that our country is on the way to becoming a totalitarian regime?

I feel sorry for you, spies, if you think that you're really making your country a better place by doing this. I feel sorry for you for not having the guts to stand up against your superiors who are requesting that you hack into US citizens computers who are doing nothing but airing their political views.

So, go ahead....Look all you want. Hope you get your thrills. You must not get a chance to see girls much, otherwise you wouldn't be needing to hack into my web cam late at night.

(End message.)

[edit on 18-5-2010 by nikiano]

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 01:06 AM by Styki

Has anyone actually read the article or listened to the audio clip the source has given?

I like the idea. It's not government propaganda in a negative definition of the word.

OP's source

Sunstein discusses how conservative websites should provide links to liberal websites and vice versa or even how political blogs should be made to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view”.

Basically he would like to encourage people to become more informed on issues by giving them the opposing argument. If anybody should support this then it should be the people here at ATS. ATS would not be what it is today if it did not have a diverse group of people who force each other to learn opposing views.

Furthermore, I am going to have to say claiming this would only help the Obama administration control information would be admitting that the majority of conservatives/republicans are brainwashed.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Styki]

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 01:21 AM by Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Vinveezy

Vinveezy.....

".....pop ups containing government propaganda....."

How hilarious would that be!

Maybe...maybe not:

"Obama's a reptilian!"

Pop-up:

"That wasn't Obama you idiot, that was Charlie Sheen's Mrs!"

Roll on the pop-ups!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 01:26 AM by JohnnyAnonymous

Originally posted by parrothead0333
Yup Glenn Beck is insane and has no idea what he is talking about!!! Beck has been telling people about this guy for months now. You might not care for Fox News but Glenn has a staff of people working on things like this so he can talk about it on his show.

Well I'm glad Mr. Beck finally caught up..

The truth of the matter is our very own "ProtoplasmicTraveler" posted back in January ( 1/13/2010 to be exact), a thread entitled: Obama staffer wants 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 conspiracy groups.

And we found it so disconcerting that we included it in the ATSnews Show entitled: ATS News 10 - Obama Administration Staffer Wants To Stop Conspiracy Theorists! (For this particular segment, you scroll ahead to 6:14). We can only be thankful that our membership are vigilant in seeking out and posting this information many months before the mainstream finally gets around to noticing..

You can download the paper by Cass Sunstein on the subject, entitled: "Conspiracy Theories, Causes and Cures," here

Excerpt:

There is a similar tradeoff along another dimension: whether the infiltration should occur in the real world, through physical penetration of conspiracist groups by undercover agents, or instead should occur strictly in cyberspace. The latter is safer, but potentially less productive. The former will sometimes be indispensable, where the groups that purvey conspiracy theories (and perhaps themselves formulate conspiracies) formulate their views through real-space informational networks rather than virtual networks. Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining; perhaps agents will be unmasked and harmed by the infiltrated group. But the risks are generally greater for real-world infiltration, where the agent is exposed to more serious harms.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:02 AM by links234

reply to post by brainwrek

Which question? I had three.

I don't understand how this point of view could be contradictary to the first amendment in any way. You're still free to spew all the lies and hate you want but you must also offer the alternative view of truth and peace. You're forced (oh no!) to decide for yourself an issue and form your own opinion based on the information given by both sides of the argument.

As the old saying goes, 'if this is bad, I don't want to be good.'

But go ahead, live in your echo chamber.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:08 AM by The Parallelogram

Oh God, Andrew Breitbart didn't like something the Obama Administration did? Stop the motherf***ing presses!

This strikes me as being about as likely as the Bush Administration seizing power through force after the 2008 elections.

Neither the Left nor the Right is to be trusted. Additionally, neither the Left nor the Right have the kind of power it would take to pull off the kind of outlandish things their most outspoken opponents would accuse them of trying to do.

A cabinet member with delusions of grandeur is one thing. Federal policy, filtered through the Ur-Bureaucracy that is Congress, is a very different thing indeed.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by The Parallelogram]

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:12 AM by brainwrek

reply to post by links234

Government has no power to mandate a journalist, blogger, website owner/admin, etc etc put forth any viewpoint whatsoever.

Since you obviously cant wrap your brain around the concept, I'll dumb it down for you:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See those important parts stating government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?

Thats exactly what this morons idea would do.

As a website owner, if I wanted to opine that you enjoy relations with livestock, it is my right to do so. Government has no power to force me to provide any commentary, information, or links to the contrary. Doing so would abridge my 1st Amendment rights.

Try taking a Constitutional law class if you wish to debate the subject.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by brainwrek]

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:32 AM by Newbomb Turk

Originally posted by Vinveezy
now what this means is if ATS wanted to break something it would first need to be approved by the Federal Government. and the fed's would be able to add what ever they wanted to "show the other side". now what does that mean? If I was to public an artical saying that the Gov't is bad they can change that to make them seem good. This would mark the end of America. I know that has been said a BILLION times before but lets think. no more free press. So lets say Obama is molesting little kids and snorting coke all day well we would never know. Lets say we nuked china we would not know. 100% controlled media. that is oblivious the extreme of it but it is possible and shows how much power it gives them.

www.prisonplanet.com

(visit the link for the full news article)
____________________________________________________________
Edit**

The user "ProtoplasmicTraveler" just supped me with this information

Name: Cass R. Sunstein
Work Address: University of Chicago Law School, 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60637
Telephone: 773-702-9498 (business)
Fax: 773-702-0730 (business)
email: Cass_Sunstein@law.uchicago.edu

I recommencement you contact him and let him know you do not agree with him. be kind do not be like " SCREW YOU! I HATE YOU!" be intelligent and mature. a special thanks to ProtoplasmicTravele for giving us this info.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vinveezy]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by Vinveezy]

Well first off I no longer take prisonplanet with the same sense of urgency as I once did when I first became aware of AJ (and in fact no believe that he truly is nothing more than a shill that is doing a good job fear mongering based off of half assed "research (guessing/piggybacking others in the same genre/exaggerating the hell out of things/etc..). Granted he DOES provide what seems like an awful lot of truths, however they are required to pass the little lie that is sandwiched in between. Now I am in no way saying that I have all the answers, or can back up what I claim as it is only my observation.

And when my observation sees and learns more and more about how this "shadow government/NWO/Illuminati/insert your own bogeyman here" plans to possibly achieve their end goal of a one world government through the Chaos Theory (order out of chaos), it appears to me that the best route to accomplish this would be through the means of creating an American Revolution/Civil War so that martial law could be declared, the constitution burned completely, and an entirely new system brought in overnight.

Now how would they initiate something so vast such as that? Fuel the public's outrage man. In fact how many of you seem to see MORE AND MORE COMPLETE AND UTTER IGNORANCE (AND I AM TALKING ON A SCALE LIKE NEVER SEEN BEFORE) DISPLAYED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ON A DAILY BASIS THESE DAYS? I honestly think that it is all being done by design, and are being expected to fall right into their plans just as the good little sheep that we are.

But then again I could just be somewhat paranoid considering all of the madness I see transpiring around me 24/7 these days :-/

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:47 AM by links234

Originally posted by brainwrek
Try taking a Constitutional law class if you wish to debate the subject.

I'd rather not debate the damage that false information, misinformation and outright lies have on our society and just accept the fact that it would be really great if both sides of the media could present both sides of a story.

When, in the information age, the truth is drowned out by lies perhaps we can look into how exactly we can stop that nonsense while maintaining the freedom to speak our minds.

Quit treating the constitution like it's some holy text that mustn't ever be altered and can't be interpreted in any other way than your own. Why can't we build on the ideas laid out in the plan rather than sticking to it regardless of the world around us?

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 02:52 AM by brainwrek

reply to post by links234

The Constitution can be altered, ever heard of the Amendment process?

It is not a living document that changes with the times, thats merely a convenient excuse used by those who wish to violate it.

I guess you would be ok with outlawing all firearms, and doing away with all other amendments then since times have changed correct?

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:05 AM by belial259

This whole plan forces people to engage in doublethink.

You offer one point of view, and then a completely opposing point of view on the same subject? Insanity.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:27 AM by GovtFlu

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Vinveezy

Everyone seems to look too deep into things.

Having said that, what's wrong with the idea of having both sides of a story easily accessible to an audience? I'm going to throw this out there; if you get all of your news from a single source, you're probably ignorant, jaded and susceptible to misinformation. There is only black and white with you, there is no gray.

Promoting information and expanding debate is taking away the freedom of speech and press? How about allowing it to happen is encouraging the freedom of ignorance? Completly anti-thema to the concept of ATS.

In a perfect fair world this wouldn't be a bad idea, but we all know the man leans 1000lbs on his cronies side of the justice/fairness scale with his 2-party thumbs.

Imagine if every time some DC gangster like bush/obama smiled out yet another un-truth... a balloon popped up "This man is lying: 'click here' ", or when a traitor creep like anderson cooper pukes his customary shill bile, a warning link appeared on screen: "80% of viewers LOL"... that would be cool, but we know accuracy will never happen... if we were the ones issuing alternative rebuttals, the govt would lose all support for the wars, war on drugs, war on terror, military recruitment would wither on the vine, 9/11 would definitely be properly investigated.... Israel wouldn't get one more US tax cent, The Fed would cease to exist, and the war mongers Iran propaganda would be silenced.

Most, if not all, views 'opposing' the dear party leaders will link to some ridiculous farce.... that criticizes dear leader for being a "perfectionist" who works "too hard", or challenges the elites anointed one to stop being so dam perfect, reasonable and smart... suggesting a penis reduction might be less intimidating, it would welcome more participation by the currently frightened girly-men who cower in their own urine on the other side of the isle.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:35 AM by links234

Originally posted by brainwrek
I guess you would be ok with outlawing all firearms, and doing away with all other amendments then since times have changed correct?

I figured I'd lose you once I got into the possibility of altering the constitution, you didn't make it to my last question in that post. I think adding to the constitution is perfectly acceptable as well, obviously. There's some concept shared by various people in this country that wholeheartedly believe that ideas thought up in an agrarian economy and pre-industrial society are fully capable of handling the issues facing the post-industrial, rapid paced world we have today. I disagree.

I would love to debate whether the relevance of the original document still stands as is or if we could bring ourselves to build upon the ideas set forth within it. Smarter government, not smaller. It could forever put to rest the argument of which laws are 'unconstitutional' due to one persons interpretation of the words. An issue that christianity has to deal with regarding the bible.

What is so difficult about the concept of having both sides of an argument being shown? I can almost equate it to warning labels on products, "Use the product, but don't kill yourself using it." I'll even go so far as to point to the program 'Hannity and Colmes' that used to air, it offered two sides to a debate (arguable in some instances were Colmes' side, but I digress) until just last year it offered only a single side.

As for belial259's remark about doublethink, I don't think it would bring people to that point. Unless they were incapable of thinking for themselves, then sure...I can see where you're going with that.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:36 AM by kyred

Well, we already have advertisments from the White House. Propaganda videos about this new person who has been recommended to be the next Supreme Court justice. The White House can't even wait for their lackeys in the MSM to tout this woman's great talents to be the next best thing since sliced bread.

Gosh, I hope she says she will be better able to make decisions than an old Puerto Rican woman.

We are fuc(&%ed! It's happened. There's too many people sleeping. And the rest of us are screwed. Thank you, all the previous neopoliticals. You csight us nspping. And now we all pay the piper.

Maybe, just maybe, enough of us are aware and are able, to join together and forget our differences, and put a stop to.M this crap.

I don't even really know where it began. LBJ and the increase of actions in Viet Nam. Maybe even before that. Harry Truman? Roosevelt? Coolidge?

You know this crap goes back a really long way.

None of this crap about GHWB., or Clinton, or GWB or Obama. It's way before their time. They just continued the same agenda.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:49 AM by hadriana

Wow. The govt. thinks I am too stupid to get on the Internet and find CNN on my own.

That's so insulting. Who is this guy that thinks he is so much smarter than the rest of us? He needs to be fired. What a self righteous idiot.

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:51 AM by ElectricUniverse

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Elena Kagan, and pretty much EVERY official of the Obama administration are not only Socialists, but they believe in Communism.

True Socialism, or Scientific Socialism, which is what these people believe in, only leads towards Communism.

Kagan wrote her thesis LAMENTING the downfall of Socialism in her "To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933" as her senior thesis, in the hope, as she wrote, "of clarifying [her] own political ideals."

It should be clear by now what road these people are taking the U.S. on... They want to destroy the Republic and to implement their dictatorial Socialist nation...

Freedom of speech does not give the right to ANYONE to use that freedom of speech to implement laws, and destroy the Republic that this Union was meant to be...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply posted on 18-5-2010 @ 03:53 AM by Redwookieaz

This is the absolutely disgusting treatment I expect to see of our Constitution by a corrupt corpratist government. The government today is a fascist corporate oligarchy that in no way represents the rule of law or the American people. They are a disgusting joke and unfortunately for us the only way we have left to stop them is to remove just about everybody from every government office and repair the damage they have done to the laws of our republic. It's a monumental task but will be our only chance. Alas I don't think enough people grasp how deep these criminals are entrenched. God help us!

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^