Obama's Rule: Turn in Thy Neighbor

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:24 am

By the way, since the Patriot Act has been brought up in relation to this...there are processes that the intelligence agencies are supposed to go through when doing their monitoring of what they see as potential threats...they have to report to congress, tell them what they find, etc. I don't know all the details, I apologize. I'm guessing you may shoot back to me that you don't trust that this process is being followed which in turn means you don't trust that the gov't is being honest.

So first, do you know or have you seen if any processes have been set up with this request from the WH? As in compliance with federal law on the collection of data? And if you DO find such processes, why do you trust that THIS WH will do exactly what they say they will, but you don't trust the past one? Has BHO been THAT much more upfront and honest about his intentions than W? If so, give me some examples of his promise of transparancy please.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:26 am

Wait a sec--your guy W said that those processes with Congress and the law are irrelevant. Are you telling me he was wrong?!?!?

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:02 am

quite simply, yes he was.

Now again, do you think the WH is collecting info on individuals?

If you can agree that the WH could be, then do you trust the Gov't to just lock it away and never even peek at it?

If the WH weren't wanting to collect the data why not have a web page where you can enter the info vs. sending in emails? At least that way, unless someone copies the entire header into the page, only the IP address of the person filling out the page could be logged.

You keep asking for proof that the WH is collecting data. And won't answer any of my questions. I can ask you for proof that they are not. That is a stalemate, so why not answer the other questions I have posed??

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:21 am

I'm still waiting on some evidence, dood. Not hypotheticals. There could be unicorns out there, but that doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time worrying about it (not even if Matt Drudge claims there are indeed unicorns).

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:32 am

How about my legal implications I made? Do you think they should have included the disclosure of what will happen to this information and email addresses as required by law for any other business or gov't entity? Can we agree that there is uncertainty about what is happening here and the great "transparancy" promise is not exactly being adhered to?

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:49 am

I have no idea what the legal implications are for a conspiracy theory.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:58 am

AAAAAlllllllrrrrrighty then.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:51 am

as an update, we made our intern send in 2 emails to that address....one was a message about asking the WH for a clear cut definition of the word "fishy" ... the second one was a forwarding of an email that was sent by a friend at her college ... it was not overly critical of the new obama plan but we'll see how the WH responds.

so far, there's been no response...i'll keep you all posted.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:12 pm

I have no idea what the legal implications are for a conspiracy theory.

Huh? Are you saying that this email from the WH doesn't exist? Is that what you think is the conspiracy theory? I'm not sure I understand what you are asking proof of...it occurred to me that you may not think that the WH never put out this request in the first place? If that is the case, then what more proof do you need than the actual WH site where the request was made?

If you believe that this was indeed a legitimate message sent out by WH asking for "fishy" information, then why can't you give your opinion on whether you think that they should disclose their intentions with the information collected as is required under the law?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:18 pm

In case there was ever any wonder as to why I've never paid a whit of attention to Wes's illogical, infantile rantings, there ya' go. Here's hoping you'll get some emotional maturity some day, kid.

I apologize for stooping to your level. Just trying to speak a language you'd understand bro. Calling me names only makes me more infantile. You're part of the problem.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:22 pm

I have no idea what the legal implications are for a conspiracy theory.

And you call me infantile and insinuate that I need to mature emotionally? Look in the mirror Josh.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:54 pm

Wait a sec--your guy W said that those processes with Congress and the law are irrelevant. Are you telling me he was wrong?!?!?

Now THAT'S emotionally mature.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:42 pm

I don't know why you all are even trying to continue at this point. It's like nailing Jello to a tree.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:06 pm

I don't know why you all are even trying to continue at this point. It's like nailing Jello to a tree.

Probably right. At this point I'm just here to defend myself from Josh's ad hominem attacks.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:35 pm

no email back as of yet....all the girls from penn state who are on the email list are pissed off at our intern because they think they're on this 'enemy' list now

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:32 pm

I don't know why you all are even trying to continue at this point. It's like nailing Jello to a tree.

True. I am too confused at this point anyway.