Obama wants Citizens to report Health Care bloggers

A million e-mails saying flag this to flag@whitehouse.gov should do it :). 

or at the very least explain what the White House would do with the information it collects.

Well - it's kinda obvious. You get the URLs, videos, email content and see what the latest wingnuttery there is. Get a team together and show them up for the dumb-asses they are. Add to that you have people who will, undoubtedly propose a mass email spam attack, good in theory - but can be seen and shown to be a denial of service attack - bit stupid to have any trace of you mac address on that baby, spooks at the door stuff. I honestly don't know if wingnuts are this crazy - or if they genuinely think that the man who had a team who organised a national web campaign is as dumb as they think he is. The RNC - or some affiliate have been sending in the troops to the town halls aka Karl Roveian tactics (see Florida hand count) to disrupt the meetings - as per exposed by none other that S Colbert in memos sent out as what to do at said meetings.

Nope...first, they aren't saying that the bloggers are criminals...this video is propaganda against health care reform and also against the administration.

One thing good about Obama is that he listens to the public so he knows how to answer their questions and concerns. He is the first president to take advantage of what citizens are saying on the internet.

This is just more trash against health care reform....and against our president, who is trying to really make some positive changes. He isn't a miracle worker...he has to deal with many others who help to make the laws.

But, he is trying.

This is not good. Thanks for the information.

Americans our treading on there own bill of rights and opening Pandora’s box on themselves... Freedom of the first Amendment and fourth Amendment are being tested and violated in regard to these requests to tell (aka fishy emails) on their Friends, Family, Neighbor and American citizens. (Read the amendments carefully, please.)

First Amendment: 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.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 Congress made no request regarding these requests for citizens to forwarding emails, that are fishy - it was the white house making this a voluntary requests by citizens which is allowing the Citizen to freely provided information making it a violation upon citizens against citizens.

Americans are standing on Touchy ground and they truly have not a clue of what the price or cost of their right as a citizen they are and will be giving up on - all by themselves. The government is not forcing any one individual to do this to protect its citizens - oh no it doing this to protect themselves and this health care plan being proposed by the Obama administration.

This guy is just another bum fom Chicago.

The Obama Administration lacks the constitutional authority to tell people, corporations and paid lobbyists what to say about health care in the blogosphere.  Nevertheless, the president has a responsibility to make good on his promise to offer health care to the 47 million people who lack it while guaranteeing that those who have health insurance will not be unfairly rejected by private insurance companies for medical help when they need it the most.

In the digital age, achieving legislative goals means engaging in hand-to-hand combat with astroturf insurance company lobbyists posing as normal members of the public.  The Administration obviously can't tell anyone what not to say, but the Administration has a responsibility to quickly respond with truthful information that helps Obama keep his campaign promises.

If someone at NowPublic says there is something wrong with implementing the changes in the US that are already working in Canada, France, Brazil and other countries, I certainly hope the Administration will ask and organize its supporters to combat and rebut lobbyists' misinformation and  rhetorical cow dung that masquerades as public opinion.

Just another Chicago thug plain and simple. If Obama thinks there is too much opposition against ANYTHING he wants to do, he resorts to strong arming and intimidation with no regard whatsoever for the will of the american people. Just another Chicago thug. Simple as that.

I am beginning to look into the issue of reporting any information that would be viewed as false information by those whom originated the plan.  I see and desire to understand different viewpoints concerning this issue.

When anything is sent as a forwarded document the sources can be traced (please correct me if I am wrong - with proof of the inability to trace the sources of the document and all those that review it and choose to re-distribute the information). 

If an institution requestes to receive such a document I ask:

What other information can be obtained through such an action?

What is their stated intent?

What other actions are possible upon obtaining the document other than the stated intent?

The Request Has Been Made.  Their stated intent is to be given the opportunity to identify statements that are being made that do not accuratly represent their proposed plan.  This will allow them to address the inacurate information which has been titled "disinformation" and present their intended purpose.

Obtainable Information.  Through receiving inaccurate information they are then enabled to clerify the intent of plan according to the intent of the creators.  They would also by default receive a list of those whom have previously received and re-distributed the document. 

Additional Actions Possible.  Questions to ask - though the stated intent has been made what additional unstated intents could exist?  If an entity gains a list of those who are in disagreement, what outcomes are possible?  The list can either be deleted and ignored or the list can be utilized for addressing those individuals.

In our nation we are allowed to vary in opinions and should encourage each individual citizen to develop their conclusions utilizing their own reason - independent thought.  Is the opportunity for an entity to missuse a list of those who are not of like mind too great a potential risk to endorse such a request?

My own independent thought is that the idea of my fellow citizen forwarding my statements to the government in any traceable format is a risk as I am then trusting the government to conduct themselfs in a manor that does not jeopardize my personal safety.  Though I do want to trust our government, I do not want to be under the flawed thought that a government entity will never act against their own people in the pursuite of their proposed agenda.

Given this, I recognize and commend their desire to address our issues but question the reason why they have turned to our fellow citizens rather than to us.

I am beginning to look into the issue of reporting any information that would be viewed as false information by those whom originated the plan.  I see and desire to understand different viewpoints concerning this issue.

When anything is sent as a forwarded document the sources can be traced (please correct me if I am wrong - with proof of the inability to trace the sources of the document and all those that review it and choose to re-distribute the information). 

If an institution requests to receive such a document I ask:

What other information can be obtained through such an action?

What is their stated intent?

What other actions are possible upon obtaining the document other than the stated intent?

 The Request Has Been Made.  Their stated intent is to be given the opportunity to identify statements that are being made that do not accurately represent their proposed plan.  This will allow them to address the inaccurate information which has been titled "disinformation" and present their intended purpose.

Obtainable Information.  Through receiving inaccurate information they are then enabled to clarify the intent of plan according to the intent of the creators.  They would also by default receive a list of those whom have previously received and re-distributed the document. 

Additional Actions Possible.  Questions to ask - though the stated intent has been made what additional unstated intents could exist?  If an entity gains a list of those who are in disagreement, what outcomes are possible?  The list can either be deleted and ignored or the list can be utilized for addressing those individuals.

In our nation we are allowed to vary in opinions and should encourage each individual citizen to develop their conclusions utilizing their own reason - independent thought.  Is the opportunity for an entity to misuse a list of those who are not of like mind too great a potential risk to endorse such a request?

My own independent thought is that the idea of my fellow citizen forwarding my statements to the government in any traceable format is a risk as I am then trusting the government to conduct themselves in a manor that does not jeopardize my personal safety.  Though I do want to trust our government, I do not want to be under the flawed thought that a government entity will never act against their own people in the pursuit of their proposed agenda.

Given this, I recognize and commend their desire to address our issues but question the reason why they have turned to our fellow citizens rather than to us.