100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: flag@whitehouse.gov is ILLEGAL & an assault free speech!!! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
There. I said it. who wants to agrue it's not??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how informative. next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might argue that it's not if I had any clue what it was....lmao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what would i know? could be? or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, you just asked if anyone wanted to argue so I did.
I don't know what the hell it is but I am sure that it is not an infringement of rights at any level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might argue that it's not if I had any clue what it was....lmao you're on this thing called the internet.. look into it.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in itself, no. Is it a setup? Most definitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cabot
on
Fri 08/07/09 06:50 PM
|
|
There. I said it. who wants to argue it's not?? If you start a thread..give us a link or an idea what your point is please..just saying. Who wants to argue? No one, we do like a spirited debate though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, you just asked if anyone wanted to argue so I did. I don't know what the hell it is but I am sure that it is not an infringement of rights at any level. you don't know what the hell it is but you're sure it's not an infringement on rights on any level.. that's brilliant. next. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might argue that it's not if I had any clue what it was....lmao you're on this thing called the internet.. look into it.. I am actually kinda busy doing some writing. If I recall, I heard something about it on the Sean Hannity show on the radio while I was in my car today. Something about being able to report people for criticizing the government or some such thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, you just asked if anyone wanted to argue so I did. I don't know what the hell it is but I am sure that it is not an infringement of rights at any level. you don't know what the hell it is but you're sure it's not an infringement on rights on any level.. that's brilliant. next. Okay I read it. It is not an infringement of any civil rights at all. Next..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There. I said it. who wants to argue it's not?? If you start a thread..give us a link or an idea what your point is please..just saying. Who wants to argue? No one, we do like a spirited debate though. link? sure. no problem. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ read the paragraph crammed between the two videos 3rd or 4th paragraph.. depends how you count. you'll see what I mean.. but for the reading comprehension impaired, the white house is asking Americans to forward healthcare opposition emails and other media material that happens to be circulating the internet.. discuss... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
forgive me for not caring, ah well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There. I said it. who wants to argue it's not?? If you start a thread..give us a link or an idea what your point is please..just saying. Who wants to argue? No one, we do like a spirited debate though. link? sure. no problem. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ read the paragraph crammed between the two videos 3rd or 4th paragraph.. depends how you count. you'll see what I mean.. but for the reading comprehension impaired, the white house is asking Americans to forward healthcare opposition emails and other media material that happens to be circulating the internet.. discuss... Ok. So the government wants to see what they are up against. How is asking people to forward emails, which people do every single day anyway, an infringement on the freedom of speech?? You'll have to explain your logic on that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of outright lies and severe misinformation out there is outrageous. I laugh at most of it but when I think about the fact that people are actually believing it then it becomes less funny and more of a concern.
They are not denying anyone the right to write anything they want. But they will be able to address the misinformation if they know about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There. I said it. who wants to argue it's not?? If you start a thread..give us a link or an idea what your point is please..just saying. Who wants to argue? No one, we do like a spirited debate though. link? sure. no problem. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ read the paragraph crammed between the two videos 3rd or 4th paragraph.. depends how you count. you'll see what I mean.. but for the reading comprehension impaired, the white house is asking Americans to forward healthcare opposition emails and other media material that happens to be circulating the internet.. discuss... Ok. So the government wants to see what they are up against. How is asking people to forward emails, which people do every single day anyway, an infringement on the freedom of speech?? You'll have to explain your logic on that one. Because the White House is not allowed to keep track or make lists of its political opponents. Think of all the information that's nested in an email, particularly one that's been/being forwarded all over hell's half acre, names, potentially IP addresses etc.. What would a list of the email addresses of everyone in American that's sent or recieved an email opposing the health care legislation.. Put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself how you'd feel about the Bush White House asking for and collecting emails from codepink et. al.. They're screwed either way. but someone else has explained it better for me already: "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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It violates the Privacy Act of 1974..
"The Privacy Act is to balance the government's need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal agencies' collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them". Notice the term "collection".. This is a "collection" of supposed "fishy" misinformation about the health care plan.. If someone emails a person's name, and the "fishy" misinformation they are accused of spreading, it is a clear violation of this act. http://www.usdoj.gov/opcl/1974privacyact-overview.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah. Ok then. I wasn't up to speed on the statutes.
thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cas6285
on
Fri 08/07/09 07:11 PM
|
|
While is probably wasn't it propose I can see how it can be interpreted as that. However I really doubt they'll 1984 on everyone either. The propose was to clear the misinformation that has so many people worried, this just wasn't the best way to do it.
Wow, so it is a clear violation of someone privacy in that manner. |
|
|
|
|
