Politcal "War Room"
locallyunscene
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
Feeder of Trolls Join Date: 2002-12-25 Member: 11528Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">good idea or scary?</div>I was just reading an article about Obama setting up a political <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4100170.ece" target="_blank">war room</a> for combating false information. The stated purpose is to prevent the silly things like "Obama is a secret muslim" and "Obama is unpatriotic" from gaining too much traction. On one hand I think it's a good idea, especially considering the mindless smears I see on political blogs and the like. On the other it borders close to a form of censorship, particularly with the wording of it as an "aggressive" organization.
I vote that it's a necessary evil, but what do you guys think?
I vote that it's a necessary evil, but what do you guys think?
Comments
Mno, that's not scary... I do think that people deciding to vote against him because they think he's a muslim is scary though!
<!--quoteo(post=1680903:date=Jun 11 2008, 07:29 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jun 11 2008, 07:29 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1680903"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Handling it how, by directly communicating with those who are misinformed and giving them correct information?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yah, I mean. The idea I am getting is basically an anti rumor mill. False information comes up, he squashes it with facts. Nothing wrong there.
Much less sensationalist than the original article was talking about. If all people are doing is linking to the site, then there's no censorship going on and calling it a "war room" is very misleading.
Edit: McCain, on the other hand, <i>is</i> taking a more aggressive approach. He tried to anyway. {<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/there-probably.html" target="_blank">wired.com</a>}
Yeah and when I worked at Land America Title Insurance there were several people (even a girl my age) who thought that was truth until I corrected them.
(actually, these same people thought McCain was too liberal...)
<!--quoteo(post=1681017:date=Jun 12 2008, 01:49 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jun 12 2008, 01:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681017"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here's the actual site:
<a href="http://www.fightthesmears.com" target="_blank">http://www.fightthesmears.com</a>
Much less sensationalist than the original article was talking about. If all people are doing is linking to the site, then there's no censorship going on and calling it a "war room" is very misleading.
Edit: McCain, on the other hand, <i>is</i> taking a more aggressive approach. He tried to anyway. {<a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/there-probably.html" target="_blank">wired.com</a>}<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obama's message is about change and hope. He wants to appeal to everybody by keeping constant to that message and the methods. He damn well better stay away from anything that isn't positive and glowing -- keep to the same style of seeking achievement. (actually making him the opposite of John Kerry who couldn't seem to decide where he stood on the issues) Of all the seemingly endless senior political analysts on the news, <a href="http://www.davidgergen.com/" target="_blank">David Gergen</a> has been making statements that were right on the money for a few months now, perhaps Obama should hire him. lol
<!--quoteo(post=1681035:date=Jun 12 2008, 06:02 PM:name=Leon)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leon @ Jun 12 2008, 06:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681035"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I heard today that there is already a "dupe" website claiming to be Fight the Smears with the same design/look to further smear him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
There have been and will continue to be phishing sites for the sole purpose of slandering a political candidate. Speaking in what we should strive for: voicing your disagreements with one candidate or another is your constitutional right under the first amendment, yet slander is not conscionable. Unfortunately, one must realize that this is politics, on the internet no less, and one <i>should</i> expect to see misinformation intentional or not. In my opinion, it's the <i>combination</i> of stupid and/or ignorant people who take everything they see on the internet for truth (know some?) <i>and</i> the manipulative people who will try to fool those stupid people <i>together</i> that makes for the problem of rampant dupe/phishing sites.
Yes, Kazbar, Obama was far ahead of the curve by using the power of the internet early on. In fact it's really helpful to his message about cleaning up lobbyist corruption by getting millions of small donations from regular folks like my dear ol' mom. (compare that with the $3.5 million raised at a private event McCain recently ran with 200 elite republican party officials at the White House)
<!--QuoteBegin-Obama+ June 3rd 2008--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Obama @ June 3rd 2008)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A phishing site has nothing to do with spreading information, they are used to collect personal information from dupes (ID/PW, SS, name/DOB/MMN,etc)
BTW, any one found one of these fake sites? just kinda curious.
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>Didn't you know? All muslims are terrorists. All of them. America has been at war with the muslim people since 9/11.</span>
^ Its scary how many Americans i've spoken to via IRC / messenger who <i>genuinely believe</i> the above as truth.
Although that said... I seriously didn't know he wasn't a muslim. I didn't <i>care</i>, I just didn't realise it wasn't true. I just have to wonder who exactly is actually going to visit this site in the course of their normal internet browsing besides Obama fans who already know that rumours X Y and Z are false.
I do find minor fault in the statements made on both sides. Obama has changed his stance on several issues, and McCain is sometimes outright wrong on some issues. Not to mention that there are plenty of really really stupid smear e-mails, usually about Obama.
For example, the one picture that gets spammed into my Inbox where Obama just happens to not have his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Very nice picture, except that's a long time ago now and does not valid he stupid statement of "Barack Obama Won't Say The Pledge of Allegiance/Won't Put His Hand Over His Heart".
McCain gets snipped at much more subtly. Here's the 5 Things you didn't know segment on the two candidates: <a href="http://centristvoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/five-things-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-mccain/" target="_blank">http://centristvoice.wordpress.com/2008/06...ama-and-mccain/</a>
Perhaps you don't notice offhand, but it seems to paint McCain in a slightly less optimistic light. Obama is the casual everybody's man who plays Scrabble and stubborn even when dating. McCain was born outside the US (Congress voted unanimously to give him native born US status) and was a maverick "The Punk" and graduated at the bottom of his class. They do get props for mentioning how Obama got into his first office by a slightly underhanded means, but it's still a bit slanted in my opinion.
Basically, both candidates need to set something like this up to clean out all the crap people keep telling me they believe.
I mean seriously. The first Black, non-Christian president? How awesome would that be?
Also:
<!--quoteo(post=1681367:date=Jun 17 2008, 09:11 PM:name=the_x5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(the_x5 @ Jun 17 2008, 09:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681367"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In fact it's really helpful to his message about cleaning up lobbyist corruption by getting millions of small donations from regular folks like my dear ol' mom[/u]. (compare that with the $3.5 million raised at a private event McCain recently ran with 200 elite republican party officials at the White House)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL!!!
As for demagogy, I agree. Politicians should not be demagogues, and should be called out on any demagogy performed. That being said, what does this have to do with demagogy? As far as I can see, it's actually about fighting demagogy, which Wikipedia defines as "a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public" - such as "he's a muslim" or "he's not patriotic!" If the site fights demagogy (even if it is restricted to a single candidate), is that not a good thing?
"Freedom of speech" does not include libel or defamation. It's one thing to express your opinion and to try to share it, it's another thing entirely to invent something for the sole purpose of twisting opinions.
X5 thinks that Obama is for the small people, when in fact he is for everyone. Obama is a prostitute who is willing to say whatever he needs to win. Who do you think sponsors NAFTA?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for demagogy, I agree. Politicians should not be demagogues, and should be called out on any demagogy performed. That being said, what does this have to do with demagogy? As far as I can see, it's actually about fighting demagogy, which Wikipedia defines as "a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public" - such as "he's a muslim" or "he's not patriotic!" If the site fights demagogy (even if it is restricted to a single candidate), is that not a good thing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you can't fight demagogy if you are a demagogue yourself first of all.
I don't know who sponsors NAFTA. I haven't researched that topic extensively. I presume you imply Obama does.
While it's certainly not a quality, saying that "he's willing to say whatever he needs to win" about a POLITICIAN is not really something that would surprise anyone.
<!--quoteo(post=1682606:date=Jul 5 2008, 10:42 PM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jul 5 2008, 10:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1682606"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Well, you can't fight demagogy if you are a demagogue yourself first of all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Obama is a demagogue, hence he is not entitled to a website disspelling common falsehoods regarding him." Now I am FULLY aware that I am in grave danger of constructing myself a STRAWMAN ARGUMENT here, so if you disagree with the sentence in quotes in any way, call me out on it right away and we'll take it from there. Otherwise, please argue for the demagogy of this candidate and, more importantly, why this disqualifies him from attempting to set the record straight regarding himself.
Finally, please try to elaborate a bit more. This is the "Discussions" forum, not the "Statements" forum. Unless it happens to be common knowledge that some person is a demagogue, you can't accuse them of demagogy without at least providing some examples.