Political YouTube Clips Thread

Remove all ads!

Considering I heard it pretty much as soon as the request for emails went out, I doubt it. I suppose it's possible, if Fox had been running stories on this from that point on. Were they?

I'll say this: this was not exactly a prime example of award winning journalism. This was coverage of an issue specific to a particular sub-audience. This was also, however, not a violation of journalistic ethics.

More people than just Fox News.

DR, that's the nature of politics in America today. It has been for a while. The news regularly gets drawn into it.

 

Yes. And talk radio, and right-wing blogs. The day it came out. Specifically, with the words "enemies list." Just like the Nazis and Commies had. This is coordinated. This is deliberate. This is also, sadly, obvious. Is it really a surprise that so many people out there believe this, so soon, despite it being a load of crap?

This also happens to be typical for Fox News, Nog - which is my point.

Respectfully, you know nothing of journalistic ethics if you believe that.

Well of course, Nog. There's also talk radio, blogs, World Net Daily, RedState.org, etc. Fox News is just the current voice of mainstream conservatism, and has the biggest and most "legitimate" platform. It didn't have to originate with them (though it likely did) to reach as wide an audience as possible, but Fox makes sure that these ideas do. They're just as happy to pass along a "scoop" from Drudge or a blog like Michelle Malkin as they are their own newsroom.

Bottom line, if you think the idea that Obama asking for healthcare emails = enemies list! was put together by average Joe on the street, and that millions of Joes all over the country specifically came up with same "enemies list" idea, all on their own, all at the same time, all the same day it came out, then you're kidding yourself. Badly.

This is not a denial that those issues are, in fact, nothing but innuendo and shameful BS. I'm glad we agree on this, at least.

 

This one is just too good to pass up:


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation

 

And another good example, painstakingly highlighted by none other than Colbert.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...46560/august-13-2009/glenn-harried-glenn-lost

 

All I know is that it's pretty rich for anyone to get on their high horse about the idea of an enemies list. Everyone's got one, even if it's not written down. You think that George W. Bush didn't have a list of people he thought were a danger to him and/or the country? You think Bill Clinton didn't know who was out to get him? You think George Bush SR. didn't have a list? I guaran - effing -- TEE you that Ronald Reagan had a list, especially after that psycho took a shot at him.

Total and complete non-issue IMHO.

 

@DR and Chandos: What's scary is that Beck is still seen as sensible. Maybe it's because of his previous life on CNN. The thing is, I used to like the guy. But he's become a caricature of, well, himself. Maybe it's just that reasonable people finally figured him out.

 

I'm a little late to the "enemies list", but I can't believe some of the posts I'm seeing here. I guess I don't believe that it is outside the realm of possibility (actually, I find it likely) that the information gathered would be used for some purpose. While I agree that every administration in all probability had an enemies list, the major difference is that other administrations didn't ask citizens to squeal on their neighbors.

Can anyone else think of a time in world history where people were encouraged to report to their government people who didn't agree with the government? I'm not saying that Obama is looking to create the next great genocide, but this isn't a behavior that any government should be doing.

Can you imagine the outrage if Bush had asked people to forward him the names of anti-war protestors? There would be people on this board whose head would have exploded. This is the exact same thing, it is a violation of peoples privacy and free speech.

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 1 seconds later... ----------

Beck says all sorts of things that many people believe. Unfortunatly, he tends to do it in a flamboyant and outrageous manner which gets him ratings and further ticks off your "reasonable people" who probably wouldn't like his message if it was done more professionally anyway

 

@TGS

From what I've understood the Whitehouse is not asking anyone to give in their neighbours, they are asking for people to send in various "myths" to them so they can be throughly debunked, they aren't interested in the source.

 

Funny thing about that, Snook, is that Obama never asked for the names of people sending misleading chain e-mails about his health care plan. He asked for the e-mails, themselves, so he could address their content. Obama stands to benefit nothing by compiling a list consisting of hotharry@gmail.com, ladiesman217@yahoo.com, and hotanalaction@mcsi.com. Unless the Obama administration is looking to take up spamming,an e-mail address list serves no real use whatsoever. Face it, dude, this is an unbelievably stupid story aimed at unbelievably stupid people -- and you know it. Or should.

 

I hear you, Snook. But, to be honest, I'm not sure how "his message" could be done "more professionally". I've come to the conclusion that he's a Limbaugh wannabe, so I think professionalism is a non-starter for him.

 

Yes, but even an internet neophyte knows that when an e-mail is forwarded there is a lot of personal information that gets forwarded with it. Unless you believe that all forwarders will delete the headers, I know I don't.

 

Why would he need anyone's help, other than Homeland Security? He was probably reading your emails himself?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/11/nation/na-wiretap11

Why would he even need an "enemies list?"

 

True, but the adminstration has still not asked anyone to squal on their neighbours, and making the jump to that conclusion requires some twisted logic and an overwhelming amount cynicism.

 

I counter that with not believing that it is possible shows a naive confidence in government officials not abusing their power. I'm fairly certain that it has happened in the past. I know I would feel far more comfortable if they didn't have the opportunity to abuse their power, as opposed to trusting them that they won't. For the record this is not just an Obama thing, I would feel the same way no matter who was in office.

 

A very fair question. I don't anticipate Obama doing anything with the information. The point is they shouldn't have it and asking for it is in bad taste.

 

That's just it, though - they're asking for healthcare questions received via email, not people's contact information. That they're getting the contact information along with the submitted questions is both superfluous and a function of the medium. I don't see how its in poor taste to receive something you didn't ask for.

 

As I posted earlier. How would you have felt if during the Bush administration I was asked by the administration to forward posts of people who are spreading "disinformation" about the war (I'm not saying you did that, I'm just using it as an example)? Would you have felt comfortable with me sending an e-mail to Karl Rove linking to a Death Rabbit post?

 

TGS - This is one of the issues that I'm really disappointed with Obama. As Tal explained, it doesn't really mean a whole lot in the real world. Yet, within the larger context, it seems as if Obama (when taken with other similar issues), is not only carrying on the Bush "War on Terror" abuses, but actually expanding them. Maybe it comes with the nature of being prez, (I'm actually starting to believe this) that a perceived threat to the "public good" trumps individual rights. I tend to believe the reverse, that the public good is best served by respect for individual rights, since the individual is the basic unit of a true democratic citizenry. While I don't see this issue by itself as any big deal, when seen in a larger context, it may help to prove that all presidents are almost paranoid in protecting their public agendas. I'm sure you can see that Tal is right in his comments, and it seems to me that it almost goes without saying that there is not much danger in this particular instance.

But that said, IMO, the rights of the individual begins with the right to privacy and the right to lawfully go about his/her day-to-day business without government intrusion.