Go Obama!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm no Bush fan but I'm just wondering if there are independent sources to verify this "Agog/Magog" story. I'm don't buy it. Because, from the tone of the article it sounds like the sort of hyperbolic "news" we've normally come to expect from the Right.

I posted the same story several months ago. I believe the source at the time might have been GQ? And I think it was in one of the Bush threads. I'll have to look for it. Anyway, it sounded credible to me.


Eta - Ah, here it is: http://www.u2interference.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6169555&postcount=369

It's from the Toronto Star, citing the GQ article. A link to the original article is in the post.
 

Really? I didn't think so.

You know they did something similar during the campaign to combat all the spurious things being intimated about Obama, right?

Now I'd be worried if that post had read like this:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. As innocent as they may seem these views are dangerous to the security of our nation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. Do you have friends, work colleagues, or other associates who have been spreading disinformation about healthcare reform? If so, get their name, address, and phone number and send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. Or contact your local law enforcement agency. And remember, even uneducated family members can be a threat."

Now THAT would be Orwellian!

(Now watch some unscrupulous right winger take my modified quote and spread it around as if it's real).
 
Violence At Townhall - Against A Conservative; Six Arrested, Including a Reporter | NewsBusters.org

We have some video of the attack. It appears that it is members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) doing at least some of the dirty work.

But it's conservatives who engage in violence and hate speech, right?

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that one of their own, reporter Jake Wagman, was one of six people arrested in connection with the beating of a conservative activist outside of a town hall forum held by Democrat Congressman Russ Carnahan.

According to Dawn Majors, a Post-Dispatch photojournalist who witnessed everything unfold, an officer said that Wagman had been "interfering."

From the article:

Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.

"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.

That is some list of injuries, which means it must have been some beating. And Gladney says he was attacked by "some of those arrested," which means there were probably more in the mob than just that.

And let us not overlook nor forget the racial slur Gladney additionally endured.

Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances.

To be very fair, Wagman of the Post-Dispatch could have simply been in the way while trying to shoot video of the assault; the article does not say.

We'll see how widely this is reported by the Lamestream Media, as it certainly fails to fit into their Conservative Haters template.


------------

I can't wait to hear what Olbermann and the Daily Kos say about this! :cute:

So comparing these protesters to Nazis, Brownshirts, political terrorists and Timothy McVeigh wasn't enough? They have to start physically attacking them now? Is it November 2010 yet?
 
Another article on the story:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/...ey-man-assaulted-by-union-thugs-at-town-hall/

By now you have probably heard about the incident last night in Gadsden, the suburb of St. Louis where a man handing out flags at a health care town hall meeting was assaulted by union thugs from Service Employees International Union SEIU.

Yesterday, union bosses called out the dogs to defend socialism against the freedom-loving Americans who have been speaking out against the government health care plan at town hall meetings. It didn’t take long for a pack of them to show up in St. Louis last night and start causing trouble.

Neil Cavuto interviewed Kenneth Gladney this afternoon about the incident.

Gladney said he was giving out the “Don’t Tread on Me” flags when someone walked up to him and asked, “Who in the &%* is selling this @&%! here?”

Gladney said he asked him if he wanted one of his flags, and the man (who was also black) asked Gladney, “What kind of n_____ are you to be giving out this kind of stuff?”

Gladney said he snatched a board of political buttons from him, Gladney grabbed it back from him and according to Gladney that is when the union thug hit him in the face. Then another union thug came up and started hitting Gladney in the face. At this point, Gladney fell down and then someone else started hitting him in the face and kicking him while he was on the ground.

David Brown, Gladney’s lawyer, released this statement earlier today:

Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

These union goons had better hope they have plenty of cannon fodder, because this kind of Chicago-style intimidation isn’t going to stop Americans from speaking out against the planned socialist takeover of the health care industry.

Our freedoms as Americans are far too precious to surrender to elitist socialists in Washington, or to brutish thugs who think they are entitled to kick around other Americans.

And we won’t.
 
actually the whole email the white house thing is not "big brother like" at all. Basically if you hear misinformation about health care, you email the white house so the white house can help stop false rumors. There is actually going to be a new website coming up trying to educate people on the new health care plan and stop the rumors that have been going around (hence email them the rumors/ concerns people are having). It has nothing to do with "reporting enemies" and its the same thing that they did on the campaign with fightthesmears.com

If you want to talk about "big brother" - well then look at W's Patriot Act.
 
So comparing these protesters to Nazis, Brownshirts, political terrorists and Timothy McVeigh wasn't enough? They have to start physically attacking them now? Is it November 2010 yet?


Who really made these comparisons?

All sides have violent people, it's just a sad fact of humanity...
 
But you're okay with the same government having the complete health records of each and every American?
millions and millions of people are already on government healthcare. i really doubt they're concerned with obama snooping through their files to see if they have any embarrassing health problems, nor do i think anyone in the government is bored enough to read files unless they need to. :shrug:
 
But you're okay with the same government having the complete health records of each and every American?

How many citizens do they have access to medical records now?

Indy, I could look up your medical records if I knew your name and date of birth, in my field I don't even need a SSN all the time. Anyone who thinks their records are some kind of sacred cow under a private industry are fooling themselves.
 
How many citizens do they have access to medical records now?

Indy, I could look up your medical records if I knew your name and date of birth, in my field I don't even need a SSN all the time. Anyone who thinks their records are some kind of sacred cow under a private industry are fooling themselves.

There currently is no central system for all health records which is why the Obama team is pushing to "save money with electronic health records for all Americans within five years."

There no doubt are cost and healthcare advantages to such a system but concerns about privacy and the potential for abuse are certainly valid as well.
 
There no doubt are cost and healthcare advantages to such a system but concerns about privacy and the potential for abuse are certainly valid as well.

in all seriousness, what is some low level government employee (if they can really even be bothered looking) going to do with the knowledge that someone has herpes, for example?
 
There currently is no central system for all health records which is why the Obama team is pushing to "save money with electronic health records for all Americans within five years."

There no doubt are cost and healthcare advantages to such a system but concerns about privacy and the potential for abuse are certainly valid as well.

It really isn't that valid when you really know how it all works... If you've ever had a brace put on or had any kind of surgery done where a rep was involved, they are now driving around with your medical records in their trunk. It's that easy. So your concerns about "privacy" are really just old school boogie man myths.
 
in all seriousness, what is some low level government employee (if they can really even be bothered looking) going to do with the knowledge that someone has herpes, for example?

Question
How long did it take to find out last fall that Joe The Plumber owed back taxes in the state of Ohio?

Answer
As long as it took for "some low level government employee" (a Democrat as it turns out) to access the state's electronic records and leak it to the press.

Anyway, my concern isn't about herpes -- it's about the possibility of centralized bureaucrats making objective, one-size-fits-all healthcare decisions instead of the treating physician making more subjective decisions.
 
Question
How long did it take to find out last fall that Joe The Plumber owed back taxes in the state of Ohio?

Answer
As long as it took for "some low level government employee" (a Democrat as it turns out) to access the state's electronic records and leak it to the press.

Anyway, my concern isn't about herpes -- it's about the possibility of centralized bureaucrats making objective, one-size-fits-all healthcare decisions instead of the treating physician making more subjective decisions.
he was a pretty public person. you know anyone who releases medical records is going to get severely bitch slapped.

if it's done properly, that won't be an issue. you could make a similar argument for what insurance companies do right now.
 
It really isn't that valid when you really know how it all works... If you've ever had a brace put on or had any kind of surgery done where a rep was involved, they are now driving around with your medical records in their trunk. It's that easy. So your concerns about "privacy" are really just old school boogie man myths.

Question
Was BVS saying "concerns about 'privacy' are really just old school boogie man myths" during the previous administration.

Answer
NO
 
Question
How long did it take to find out last fall that Joe The Plumber owed back taxes in the state of Ohio?

Answer
As long as it took for "some low level government employee" (a Democrat as it turns out) to access the state's electronic records and leak it to the press.


You go and sign up for an iPhone and they do a credit check and the sales person knows this... I'm not really sure what your point is...
 
he was a pretty public person.
Well, actually he was just a citizen that famously asked the president a question and was a guest on a couple of TV shows the next few days.

How long did it take to find out that Miss California Carrie Prejean had breast implants? About the same period of time I think.

if it's done properly
Which is what's best for the patient or what's best for the collective?
you could make a similar argument for what insurance companies do right now.
True enough, but I like my chances of recourse better with a private company than I would with a federal health colossus.
 
Well, actually he was just a citizen that famously asked the president a question and was a guest on a couple of TV shows the next few days.

Which is what's best for the patient or what's best for the collective?

yes, but it only became a big deal after mccain used (that's not the term i'd use, but you know) him as an example at the debate. i'm not saying it's right, but if you're in the public eye you kind of have to expect some type of public scrutiny. especially when it's blatantly at odds with the image of himself he was trying to represent.

clearly i meant best for the patient. there's no reason it can't be best for both.
 
How has the medical industry changed since the previous administration? I'm missing your point.


You know, all that Patriotic Act, Terrorist surveillance, FISA court stuff.

If the privacy of your phone calls is so important why not be at least somewhat concerned about your medical records?

Remember, someday a Republican may be back in the White House.
 
You know, all that Patriotic Act, Terrorist surveillance, FISA court stuff.

If the privacy of your phone calls is so important why not be at least somewhat concerned about your medical records?

Remember, someday a Republican may be back in the White House.
the government isn't going to be actively looking through your health records to see if you've done anything "wrong". i don't really see this as an appropriate comparison.
 
True enough, but I like my chances of recourse better with a private company than I would with a federal health colossus.

Except you don't seem to have any real evidence about the differences right now, do you? They're all still handing out the info, allowed to, and have an obligation to... Your only real alternative is to go Amish.
 
You know, all that Patriotic Act, Terrorist surveillance, FISA court stuff.

If the privacy of your phone calls is so important why not be at least somewhat concerned about your medical records?

Remember, someday a Republican may be back in the White House.

So basically you're saying that you don't really have an issue, except that it's a Democrat in the White House...
 
Really? I didn't think so.

You know they did something similar during the campaign to combat all the spurious things being intimated about Obama, right?

Now I'd be worried if that post had read like this:

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. As innocent as they may seem these views are dangerous to the security of our nation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. Do you have friends, work colleagues, or other associates who have been spreading disinformation about healthcare reform? If so, get their name, address, and phone number and send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. Or contact your local law enforcement agency. And remember, even uneducated family members can be a threat."

Now THAT would be Orwellian!

(Now watch some unscrupulous right winger take my modified quote and spread it around as if it's real).

so now people's free speech needs to be reported to the white house? and what are they going to do with the information they get?

imagine if bush had done the same thing with the iraq war. "report anything you see or hear that seems "fishy" about the iraq war to the white house." i think even the anti-gun people would've been up in arms. :lol: but since Obama is in charge, and everyone looooves him, it's no big deal.
 
Violence At Townhall - Against A Conservative; Six Arrested, Including a Reporter | NewsBusters.org


Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.

"It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked," he said.

That is some list of injuries, which means it must have been some beating. And Gladney says he was attacked by "some of those arrested," which means there were probably more in the mob than just that.



See now, if only he had free health care....
 
Who really made these comparisons?

Nancy Pelosi- "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare."

Virginia Democrat Congressman Brian Baird- "What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics."

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein- "By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems."

Again, Einstein himself, Congressman Baird- "If people set out to disrupt town hall meetings, to intimidate people who sincerely want to discuss important serious issues, the first victim is the democracy itself. But beyond that, some of the rhetoric we're hearing is vaguely- not vaguely- eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim Mcveigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma."

All sides have violent people, it's just a sad fact of humanity...

Yes, but it seems an attack like this would be... I don't know... covered a little more in the media had the roles been reversed. Especially since the victim was black.
 
See now, if only he had free health care....

I'd wait for the NAACP, the ACLU, and President Obama to come out and denounce this attack and the attackers (maybe say the SEIU acted stupidly), but I think I'd be waiting a heck of a long time.
 
Hey, looky here. Obama's "snitch" operation may be illegal.

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say - Political News - FOXNews.com

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it," Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday.

"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.

"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

The White House has been under fire since it posted a blog on Tuesday that asked supporters to e-mail any "fishy" information seen on the Web or received electronically to flag@whitehouse.gov.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there," the blog said, adding that "since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help."

The blog was posted partly in response to a video posted on the Web that claimed to show Obama explaining how his health care reform plans eventually will eliminate private insurance.

The video, featured on the Drudge Report, strung together selected Obama statements that the White House said were taken out of context.

The White House said it wanted to be made aware of "fishy" comments about its health care plan because it wants to set the record straight. But critics called White House move an Orwellian tactic designed to control the health care debate.

"This is a very troubling attempt to stifle the free speech of Americans who have the constitutional right to express their opinion and concerns about health care," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He called on Obama to repudiate his blog.

"This move is an attempt to intimidate those who have legitimate concerns about the health care plan," Sekulow said. "And, worse, it turns the White House into some sort of self-appointed 'speech police.' This new White House reporting program strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and has no place in this important debate about health care."

Sekulow said he imagines that opponents of mandatory abortion coverage are engaging in what the White House considers "fishy" speech and should be reported.

"What the White House is touting is absurd," he said.

But Napolitano said the White House probably cannot be sued because of sovereign immunity, unless someone was harmed by what the government did with the records. But that's unlikely, he said, because the person would probably be unaware of the harm.

"That's a silent violation of your right to privacy," he said.

The ACLU said in a statement to FOXNews.com that the White House blog is a "bad idea that could send a troublesome message."

But the organization added, "While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration's health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech."

The White House Thursday denied that it was playing "Big Brother."

"Nobody is collecting names," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "We have seen, and as I've discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform, a lot of it spread, I think, purposefully."

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who has called on Obama to end the program, rejected the White House explanation.

"Of course the White House is collecting names," he said, arguing that anyone with access to the e-mail account has access to private information.

"The question is not what the White House is doing, but how and why," he said. "How are they purging names and e-mail addresses from this account to protect privacy? Why do they need the forwarded e-mails, names, and 'casual conversations' sent to them instead of just the arguments that they want to rebut?

Asked by FOX News whether the White House was using the blog post as a way to expand the e-mail list for the administration and Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, Gibbs said the two are "not in any way connected" and repeated that the White House is not collecting names.

Pressed about the program's goal, Gibbs said it was to clarify for everybody what the misinformation is, adding that's not a new tactic.

"When you make a mistake in your report, sometimes I e-mail you," Gibbs said to FOX News' Major Garrett. "Occasionally, I call. Sometimes I just throw something against the wall. Occasionally, it's all three."

Garrett asked why it's necessary to ask so many people to e-mail the White House.

"All we're asking people to do is, if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for them. Nobody's keeping anybody's names. I do have your e-mail. ...Maybe that's because I assume future mistakes. But I'm not going to say that," Gibbs said, drawing laughter.

"But nobody's collecting information," he added. "Everybody is trying to give people only the facts around what we all understand is a very complicated issue."
 
I'd wait for the NAACP, the ACLU, and President Obama to come out and denounce this attack and the attackers (maybe say the SEIU acted stupidly), but I think I'd be waiting a heck of a long time.

ACLU? Really? I guess you haven't heard they're on "your" side about the report fishy comments idea... So much for it being the Communist organization that conservatives often like to paint it as...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom