Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech
-
Anyone who is not an utter retard would spot that I pointed out that the claims the article makes, are grossly exaggerated. What you think, does not matter to me. I doubt you think at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
All you have done is spit your spew, and engage in name calling.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
All you have done is spit your spew, and engage in name calling.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Sure. I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence against actually addressing the points I raised. The article you copied is beyond ridiculous, because even with selective quoting, it cannot make the actual writing that it quotes claim remotely what it wants it to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sure. I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence against actually addressing the points I raised. The article you copied is beyond ridiculous, because even with selective quoting, it cannot make the actual writing that it quotes claim remotely what it wants it to say.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence defense against actually addressing the points I raised.
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman, and lashed out at it like a smelly little pimple faced school girl using a stack-overflow recursion. Must be a result of the fluoride tabs your ignorant mother poisoned you with.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence defense against actually addressing the points I raised.
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman, and lashed out at it like a smelly little pimple faced school girl using a stack-overflow recursion. Must be a result of the fluoride tabs your ignorant mother poisoned you with.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Wow - you corrected my spelling. You must feel special. And you even got to use the term 'straw man'. Do you know what it means, now ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence defense against actually addressing the points I raised.
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman, and lashed out at it like a smelly little pimple faced school girl using a stack-overflow recursion. Must be a result of the fluoride tabs your ignorant mother poisoned you with.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence defense against actually addressing the points I raised.
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman, and lashed out at it like a smelly little pimple faced school girl using a stack-overflow recursion. Must be a result of the fluoride tabs your ignorant mother poisoned you with.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
What a tosser
------------------------------------ No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Clare Boothe Luce
-
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved. Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay. 1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders? http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech/[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
While I do advocate a 'stupid tax' on occasion, I've never come up with a viable means of enforcement so the idea has sat in limbo. Do these guys have the slightest clue how it could be enforced, or is this just more hot air?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- Government might ban conspiracy theorizing.
How? What are they going to do, hold the ideas up to light and watch as they crumble? That's not really banning, that's more of an organized debunking effort which is something that Obama's had going his entire campaign, so it shouldn't be anything new or surprizing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I can see how telling yourself that, is a good defence defense against actually addressing the points I raised.
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman, and lashed out at it like a smelly little pimple faced school girl using a stack-overflow recursion. Must be a result of the fluoride tabs your ignorant mother poisoned you with.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Better. Did you actually use a strawman in calling his argument a strawman and expect me not to correct you? He pointed out that even with not quoting the stuff said correctly the conclusion reached was grasping at straws. So you say his point is a strawman and attack it. Okay, note if you will I have not called you a name. Now I am going to explain what you did wrong, take notes. The original post you said called this a deepening controversy. There was no controversy. No one cared except for a small group. Controversy requires a fair number of people upset over something. Bank bailouts had controversy. Iraq has controversy, this was not one. The article then says stuff that is not backed by the actual quotes, makes some fairly illogical conclusions and leaps of logic that are a bit staggering. You take these as obvious. You failed to engage in critical thinking. Christian pointed out these issues. You say he built a strawman. You never point out what the strawman is, just say he built one and attack him for it, while throwing some insults in there and hoping it sticks. I do like the stack overflow recursion symbolism, that was pretty sweet. But at no point in time do you ever refute or even address his actual points. I will end this with one of my favortie quotes. "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You seem to have built yourself up as a strawman
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Better. Did you actually use a strawman in calling his argument a strawman and expect me not to correct you? He pointed out that even with not quoting the stuff said correctly the conclusion reached was grasping at straws. So you say his point is a strawman and attack it. Okay, note if you will I have not called you a name. Now I am going to explain what you did wrong, take notes. The original post you said called this a deepening controversy. There was no controversy. No one cared except for a small group. Controversy requires a fair number of people upset over something. Bank bailouts had controversy. Iraq has controversy, this was not one. The article then says stuff that is not backed by the actual quotes, makes some fairly illogical conclusions and leaps of logic that are a bit staggering. You take these as obvious. You failed to engage in critical thinking. Christian pointed out these issues. You say he built a strawman. You never point out what the strawman is, just say he built one and attack him for it, while throwing some insults in there and hoping it sticks. I do like the stack overflow recursion symbolism, that was pretty sweet. But at no point in time do you ever refute or even address his actual points. I will end this with one of my favortie quotes. "What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
+5 Billy Madison Quote And... You know, I really can't add anything to that post. Well said.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved. Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay. 1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders? http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech/[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Have you read the actual white paper the guy wrote? The link on Info wars doesn't work. I had to look up the actual article by his name to find it. I noticed further down in the article that he refers to wikipedia. I thought wikipedia wasn't a reliable source.
modified on Friday, January 15, 2010 8:59 AM
-
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved. Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay. 1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders? http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech/[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Could you take your faggot agenda back to the pizza parlour please.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved. Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay. 1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders? http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech/[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
-5: Ignoring context. I'm reading the ACTUAL PAPER (Link[^])... What you quoted is the first two elements of a list of five alternatives, after which he advocates the OTHER three options. It's like saying, "Well, we could just kill all the crazies, but that's obviously not a good solution." Allow me to quote the OTHER alternatives, that he actually advocates: "(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." Translation: 3) Publicly debate against the conspiracy theorists 4) Pay a third-party to do previous 5) Instead of PAYING third-parties, as previous, convince them to volunteer In other words, he's advocating that the government stop ignoring the conspiracy nuts, and instead shut them up by showing everyone how ridiculous their claims are. Yeah, real sinister. When it says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions," in reference to all five points, pay attention to the word "imaginable." Not "likely," or "probable," but "imaginable." As in, if things get REALLY REALLY bad, i.e. complete anarchy and societal breakdown, those two options might end up on the negotiating table. You fail.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
-5: Ignoring context. I'm reading the ACTUAL PAPER (Link[^])... What you quoted is the first two elements of a list of five alternatives, after which he advocates the OTHER three options. It's like saying, "Well, we could just kill all the crazies, but that's obviously not a good solution." Allow me to quote the OTHER alternatives, that he actually advocates: "(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." Translation: 3) Publicly debate against the conspiracy theorists 4) Pay a third-party to do previous 5) Instead of PAYING third-parties, as previous, convince them to volunteer In other words, he's advocating that the government stop ignoring the conspiracy nuts, and instead shut them up by showing everyone how ridiculous their claims are. Yeah, real sinister. When it says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions," in reference to all five points, pay attention to the word "imaginable." Not "likely," or "probable," but "imaginable." As in, if things get REALLY REALLY bad, i.e. complete anarchy and societal breakdown, those two options might end up on the negotiating table. You fail.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
That's pretty much what I found after I read the white paper. The problem I have with people like Alex Jones is they prosper off of giving false statements, call it journalism and then when people call them on it they resort to name calling and the persecution response.
-
That's pretty much what I found after I read the white paper. The problem I have with people like Alex Jones is they prosper off of giving false statements, call it journalism and then when people call them on it they resort to name calling and the persecution response.
But they speak the journalistic truth! You are just a big doo-doo head that wants to see him destroyed! ;) How'd I do?
-
But they speak the journalistic truth! You are just a big doo-doo head that wants to see him destroyed! ;) How'd I do?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
How'd I do?
Pretty much spot on. :laugh:
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
- Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.
-5: Ignoring context. I'm reading the ACTUAL PAPER (Link[^])... What you quoted is the first two elements of a list of five alternatives, after which he advocates the OTHER three options. It's like saying, "Well, we could just kill all the crazies, but that's obviously not a good solution." Allow me to quote the OTHER alternatives, that he actually advocates: "(3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." Translation: 3) Publicly debate against the conspiracy theorists 4) Pay a third-party to do previous 5) Instead of PAYING third-parties, as previous, convince them to volunteer In other words, he's advocating that the government stop ignoring the conspiracy nuts, and instead shut them up by showing everyone how ridiculous their claims are. Yeah, real sinister. When it says "each will have a place under imaginable conditions," in reference to all five points, pay attention to the word "imaginable." Not "likely," or "probable," but "imaginable." As in, if things get REALLY REALLY bad, i.e. complete anarchy and societal breakdown, those two options might end up on the negotiating table. You fail.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
You missed out that the paper was written two years ago, a year before Paddy O'Barmy was elected. So, Mr President was planning to shut Wee-Parts up long before he even had the nomination, let alone being elected...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
You missed out that the paper was written two years ago, a year before Paddy O'Barmy was elected. So, Mr President was planning to shut Wee-Parts up long before he even had the nomination, let alone being elected...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
So, Mr President was planning to shut Wee-Parts up long before he even had the nomination, let alone being elected...
Well duh, he knew he was going to win. The conspiracy had already set it up. Otherwise they might have had Ron Paul to contend with. And we all know how scared they are of him.
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
So, Mr President was planning to shut Wee-Parts up long before he even had the nomination, let alone being elected...
Well duh, he knew he was going to win. The conspiracy had already set it up. Otherwise they might have had Ron Paul to contend with. And we all know how scared they are of him.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Otherwise they might have had Ron Paul to contend with.
For some reason I imagined Ron Jeremy[^] scaring people. I need to go clean my mind.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
The controversy surrounding White House information czar and Harvard Professor Cass Sunstein’s blueprint for the government to infiltrate political activist groups has deepened, with the revelation that in the same 2008 dossier he also called for the government to tax or even ban outright political opinions of which it disapproved. Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an agency within the Executive Office of the President. On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” the man who is now Obama’s head of information technology in the White House proposed that each of the following measures “will have a place under imaginable conditions” according to the strategy detailed in the essay. 1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. 2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. That’s right, Obama’s information czar wants to tax or ban outright, as in make illegal, political opinions that the government doesn’t approve of. To where would this be extended? A tax or a shut down order on newspapers that print stories critical of our illustrious leaders? http://www.infowars.com/obama-information-czar-calls-for-banning-free-speech/[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]