How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Attackwatch.com
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Attackwatch.com

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 09-18-2011 03:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Obama ‘Attack Watch’ Website to Help Supporters ‘Fight Back’

It’s not easy being an Obama for America volunteer, especially when you feel ill-equipped to respond to the waves of attacks from his critics, says Jennifer Kickliter, a Tennessee college student who’s signed up for the 2012 campaign.

Now, Kickliter, and other Obama supporters like her, could get some help in the new campaign-sponsored website AttackWatch.com.

Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird said the site offers “new resources to fight back,” including policy issue pages that fact check statements by Obama’s Republican opponents with links to “evidence” to back them up.   Its slogan is “Get the facts. Fight the smears.”

According to the site, Obama volunteers can also help campaign headquarters keep track of attacks on the president by submitting “reports” via mailform and tweeting about them using the Twitter hashtag #attackwatch.

The initiative is a throwback to a similar online effort launched by Team Obama during the 2008 campaign, called Fight the Smears.

“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,” Obama said in 2008, words that were posted atop FightTheSmears.com.

That quote and a similar pledge are absent from this latest incarnation of a truth-seeking website. Perhaps it’s a sign of what’s to come.
   (italics mine)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-attack-watch-website-to-help-supporters-fight-back/

Attack Watch, new Obama campaign site to ‘fight smears,’ becomes laughing stock of conservatives
By Elizabeth Flock

As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up, President Obama’s campaign team has set up a new Web site, AttackWatch.com, to challenge negative statements about the president made by Republican presidential candidates and conservatives.

Obama for America national field director Jeremy Bird told ABC News that the site’s goal is to offer “resources to fight back” against attacks. Mostly, that means fact checking statements from the likes of GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry and conservative commentator Glenn Beck and offering evidence to the contrary. The site is designed in bold red and black colors, and uses statements like “support the truth” and “fight the smears.” The response to the site has been less than stellar.

Tommy Christopher of Mediaite noted sarcastically of the site, “Great. Sounds like a terrific content-generating resource for right-wing bloggers, too. Everybody wins!”

While the initiative is reminiscent of a similar online effort launched during the 2008 campaign, called Fight the Smears, the intimidating design and language of the new site seems to be what’s causing a bigger ruckus.

Fight the Smears looked and felt far less scary, quoting Obama at the top of its page in a classic hope-change statement: “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.”

Attack Watch, on the other hand, uses the shorter tag­line, “Get the Truth. Fight the Smears.”

It’s safe to say that in its 24 hours of existence, Attack Watch has already backfired, becoming a tool for conservatives to use against Obama 2012. A tweet by conservative author Brad Thor summed up the critics’s argument: “Wow, not only are Obama & Co. incredibly thin-skinned, they're paranoid.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html


I agree with the comment made that it shows how thin-skinned and paranoid the administration is. George Orwell would love this one.

So how do you feel about this tactic? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Will it help Obama or hurt him? Personally I think it's great and I look forward to seeing Obama's attempt to refute certain charges against him. I also look forward to seeing Obama trying to push the fact that democrats don't do the same he is complaining about. If Obama can't stand the heat that comes with being president, he should have stayed in Chicago. It makes him look like a whiner, as it did when he personally went after Beck, Limbaugh, Fox, the chamber of congress, and anyone who opposed him publicly. For a smooth talker and great teleprompter reader, he is showing how unpresidential a president can actually  be.
Uncas
Member
since 07-30-2010
Posts 348


1 posted 09-18-2011 05:05 PM       View Profile for Uncas   Email Uncas   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Uncas


quote:
So how do you feel about this tactic? Good? Bad? Indifferent?



Indifferent.

Personally I prefer to fact check the questionable claims of politicians myself, whichever side those claims come from. That said after visiting the site it looks like a good starting point for anyone who wants to counter some of the false claims generated by the right, a similar site countering claims from the left using verifiable facts would be useful.

A far better alternative would be if the politicians, of both sides, presented the facts at the time they made their claims - but that's unlikely to happen.


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 09-18-2011 10:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you for your opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPwDRZ6pTM&feature=player_embedded  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 09-19-2011 03:51 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I don't understand; what's thin-skinned and paranoid?  If the right is getting its facts wrong, accidentally or on purpose, what's so bad about presenting either; a) the truth, when available; or b) the other side, when the truth is ambiguous, and the question has to do with a difference of approach to a question?  If I were getting my facts wrong, I'd want to know.  I'd want to base my point of view on the best facts available.  If my opposition's approach was to an issue was different, I'd want to know how it was different.  Maybe I would want to agree with my opponent and save my opposition for issues I felt were important and which highlighted the advantages of my positions over those of my antagonist.  Hopefully, she would want to do the same.  Disagreement simply for the sake of disagreement would be sort of silly, don't you think?  How tiring!

     If the Right doesn't have a clear up the smears from the Obama campaign web site, I have to ask myself, Why not?

     I hate to think that Democrats are so very much inferior to Republicans in telling plausible lies.  I also don't like to believe that Republicans don't fall for Plausible lies so easily, given their propensity to believe the alliance between Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein and many other whoppers told by and then repudiated by the Republican leadership.

     Just because the Democrats have a site called Attackwatch.com doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for.  On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.  Why the Republicans believe that having a bunch of informed Democrats sitting around is funny or foolish sure beats me.  But I hadn't noticed them being particularly concerned before the campaign started.  Perhaps it's the presence of so many independents around that makes the humor so clear, and that our friends on the right are hoping the sound of all that humor will keep the facts from soaking in to the minds of independent thinkers.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


4 posted 09-19-2011 08:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Just because the Democrats have a site called Attackwatch.com doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for.

I shall place that statement in my "He really said THAT?" file.

I find myself wondering who is going to provide such information, He is appealing to the general public....well, the left side of it, anyway. What exactly would that information be? That Sam Schwartz down at the local bar claims Obama likes to kick dogs? What would Obama do then? Take out an ad in the local paper declaring he does NOT kick dogs? Or does he maybe have  the IRS check on Sam's tax returns for the past 7 years?

The misinformation, the TRUE misinformation, would be something known to Obama and the administration, or else they are more incompetent than even I believe. It would be on tv, in the newspapers, or somewhere where it could reach a lot of people. It wouldn't come from Mabel at the beauty shop. Do you really think that Obama doesn't have his minions out looking for negative reports about him? This is just a 1984 scenario where people are recruited by  the government to turn informant for the sake of their leader, not that they would actually do anything worthwhile, but to make them feel they are part of Obama's "army". It is silliness to the extreme and worth of the ridicule it is receiving. It wouldn't surprise me to imagine Obama lying in bed, moaning, "Now why the heck did I do that???"
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


5 posted 09-19-2011 01:39 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I don't like the dark design and demonizing everything or everyone that may have gotten things incorrect as an "attack" or an "attacker".  I think those things do give it a stench of "fearmongering".  Why can't they just focus on the facts, and tone down those other things so they don't distract therefrom?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


6 posted 09-19-2011 05:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

         At least you're smiling when you take the comment out of context.  

     I don't have to do a John Wayne and say, "Smile when you say that, Stranger!"  If John Wayne actually ever said that.

Affectionately, Bob
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 09-19-2011 05:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ah, the old "You took me out of context" when I reprint your exact words. That was actually a complete sentence of yours, Bob. Well, at least the complaint allows you to disregard the rest of the comment so that works for you.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


8 posted 09-20-2011 02:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Back where I grew up, the phrase "out of context" does not mean only material from the same sentence, Mike.  It means material enough to contextualize the quoted part within the set of thought it was intended to express.

     In the case you were describing, that single sentence was part of a two sentence context.  The second sentence has two clauses.  The structure of the paragraph was dialectical on the one hand, a; on the other hand, b; and, perhaps as a result, perhaps as a co-existing condition, we have c.  

     That was the context.

     You chose to suggest that the context for the whole construction was part a.

     This was the context from which you lifted the quote and which distorted what I actually said.

quote:

Just because the Democrats have a site called Attackwatch.com doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for.  On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.



     Another example, this one hypothetic and absurd.  Its very absurdity should highlight exactly how out of context it is.

     Over many exchanges we have had you have pretty much unswervingly defended the last President Bush.  There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of many people here that Bush was pretty much fine with you.  To draw any other conclusion would be stupid and wrong headed in the extreme.  

     However, if you had said that Bush had done something wrong [and you have in fact done so, and I understand that this doesn't affect you admiration from President Bush overall in the least, which is why I'm chosing this as an example] and I had posted that as your opinion with quotation marks around it, even if that were the only piece of writing in your post, I would still be pretty much taking you out of context.

     Why would that be?

     Pretty much because I know better.  I know that you are a staunch Bush advocate, and presenting one quote as representative of your thoughts and feelings on the matter would amount to an absurd leap on my part.  I'd have to have a pretty good idea that these were representitive of your real thoughts and feelings, or some serious and thought out aspect of them before I could start presenting the quotes as representative and not having been taken out of context.

     If you get some guy who's got a history of making this sort of remark and having it be part of the ongoing texture of his speech and thought, that's in context.  If you have information right next to the quote you've taken that modifies or contradicts the part you've taken, that's out of context.  It's like photoshopping thoughts and opinions.

     As for your notion about the President's "minions," I have mixed thoughts and feelings about that.

     Ever since the passage of The PATRIOT ACT, I am afraid that every president has "minions," and that they are unlikely to given them up.  I had hopes that President Obama would, but they were dashed.  If he has a second term, maybe they will be then.  Certainly they were not given up during the Bush administration.  I hold both parties to blame as fools and self serving cowards who were and are willing to sell their freedoms down the river.  
I have heard no call from the Tea Party about addressing these issues, either, nor of returning Posse Comitatus to its status of law of the land.  I have seen no serious political attack on the security state.  

     In that sense, yes, I worry about minions, but they are governmental minions in general, not specific to either party.

     As for having an army of informants looking for whispers from Uncle Igor and Aunt It and turning them in for chump change and a pat on the back, why?  None of the nutty ideas or more obvious lies have been particularly secret.  They'be been bold, cold and oversold for the most part.  The Right Wing hasn't been shy about any of them, and the need for a special snitch brigade is sorta stupid.  In case you hadn't noticed, under provisions of The PATRIOT ACT and other fine pieces of legislation you've defended (sorry, Mike, but it's true) the government already has all the source material it needs to know pretty much anything it wants to know about us.  I used to have some confidence in warrants as investigative tools, and of the government being willing to respect them.  I certainly don't now.

     Goodness, they're swamped with information about us now.  They have so much information, they have no idea what to do with it, what's important and what isn't or how to organize it. What the don't know for sure could probably be inferred from consumer data gather by private companies on the web.  The government doesn't need your little grandson.  Or your little dog, too.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 09-20-2011 08:22 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

As for having an army of informants looking for whispers from Uncle Igor and Aunt It and turning them in for chump change and a pat on the back, why?  None of the nutty ideas or more obvious lies have been particularly secret.

Exactly the point, Bob.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


10 posted 09-20-2011 01:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

**********************************************************************
On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.

**********************************************************************

Goodness, they're swamped with information about us now.  They have so much information, they have no idea what to do with it, what's important and what isn't or how to organize it. What the don't know for sure could probably be inferred from consumer data gather by private companies on the web.  The government doesn't need your little grandson.  Or your little dog, too.

**********************************************************************

Same person issued both comments....
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 09-20-2011 04:08 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     That's right, same person making the statements.

     Different refferant, however, to the "they," so the actual subject of each sentence is different.  One subject is the membership of the political party, "The Democratic Party," and the other subject is the bureaucratic staff of the national government, which is supposed to function in a reasonably apolitical way.  The civil service was set up to help this separation along, and this is why fund-raising is not supposed to be done from government buildings and why we have scandals when that like is crossed.

    Scandals which have, if I recall correctly, upset you on occasion.  Lincoln bedroom was one I believe I recall hearing you mention, and quite rightfully.

     I believe you are conflating two distinct contexts and saying that the mistake ius mine.  If you have any evidence that I meant the same thing in both contexts, please present it and we can examine it together more closely.  If I don't keep two things distinct that should have been kept distinct, it will do me good to see where my thinking got muddy and confused.  If you slipped, we can see how the two of us think about how party and government function do and do not overlap, and how they should and should not do so.  It seems like a win/win proposition either way.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 09-20-2011 04:18 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I confess I am confused. The first quote to me was about the attack website and the second about a political party. If I'm wrong, please correct me. There was no attempt to mislead. To me the top quote MUST refer to the attack website. I can't envision it referring to anything else.

Also, in this line..

The Right Wing hasn't been shy about any of them, and the need for a special snitch brigade is sorta stupid.

I assume the "special snitch brigade" refers to the attack website since I've seen no reference to Republicans and any "snitch brigade". Is that correct??

I'd like to spend more time but I need to leave for several hours. I'll monitor your reply as best I can.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


13 posted 09-20-2011 08:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

    Dont intend to be confusing Mike.  If my writing is confusing, thats my fault; it doesnt matter how clear I think Im being.  Its my responsibility to get stuff across.

quote:

Just because the Democrats have a site called Attackwatch.com doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for.On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.



On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; unpacks, the way I intended it, as, Simply because there is such a website, however, does not mean the opposite situation applies, either, and the Democrats are wrong, and that there isnt an attack to watch for on the part of the Republicans.  The subject of the sentence,  The Democrats, is the action of the Democratic Party and how they are acting, whether they are correct in their assumptions or not correct in their assumptions, though this clause is about them being possibly correct about the Republican motives and actions , and the previous sentences was about them being wrong.

     The final clause of this sentence, and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.  speaks about the usefulness of this information to the Democratic Party.  It is, in fact useful on a number of levels.  But this clause as well is about the party, though it talks about the usefulness or potential; usefulness of such a site to the party.

     In fact, the usefulness of such a site may lie in part in it being able to present a unified or relatively unified response to unified attack strategies such as some that the Republicans have devised, such as some of Mr. Atwaters, which he later regretted, or Mr. Roves, or what appear to have been President. Nixons  willingness to use the IRS and to develop a White House enemies list or his use of his Red-Baiting attacks on his first congressional primary opponent, or some used against other Primary opponents in George Bush, the Youngers Presidential campaign (South Carolina comes to mind).

     It would be foolish for me to say these were particular to only one party, so I wont, but I have noticed that Democrats seem to feel theyve done better in elections since theyve started using this sort of quick response truth telling strategy.  Sorry, weve done better.  I dont mean to hide my partisanship.  I do intend to be as decent a guy as I can manage to be around it and to be  straight about it and myself.  The fact that Republican dislike about this tactic now seems to be mustering suggests that it has had a significant effect, and that many are disturbed by it.

     The second statement, if by the second statement you mean, Goodness, they're swamped with information about us now.They have so much information, they have no idea what to do with it, what's important and what isn't or how to organize it. What they don't know for sure could probably be inferred from consumer data gather by private companies on the web.The government doesn't need your little grandson.Or your little dog, too, is not about the Party.  I dont believe that Parties have access to that level of data for private use, though they may, and surely do, both hire companies with expertise in data mining as part of their research efforts.  The sorts of
Data that Im talking about there is  only available to agencies that have access to massive phone-tap capabilities, such as NSA and the NDIA.  Those sorts of  information are, I sure hope, not available to political parties or private individuals for political use, though exactly how that would be prevented I have no idea.

     Access like that would blow any such little paranoid worry like  being informed on by your children and your goldfish and pets out of the water.  The government has the technology to listen to your goldfish talking to your cats on their cellphones, and everybody knows your cats steam your mail open.

     They probably eat the cookies on your computer for afternoon snacks, and if they know what youre saying here and in your emails to Osama, Mike, face it, buddy, the jug is up, for you, your grandson and your little dog too.

     I was talking about the Democrats and the government.

     If it sounded like anything else, it was obviously my fault, but hopefully Ive clarified things and offered a little entertainment on the way.  Hope the day was good.  
    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 09-20-2011 11:44 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, Bob. I'll give a brief explanation of what I read and then let it go, not to belabor it to death.

    Just because the Democrats have a site called Attackwatch.com doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for.  On the other hand, it doesn't mean there isn't, either; and oddly enough, some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation and misinformation.


The subject is the Democrats, yes. Attackwatch is the object. "Doesn't mean there is an attack to watch for and doesn't mean there isn't" refers to the democrat's action in creating the site. That in itself is a little confusing. You are basically saying at that point that Attackwatch actually may or may not have a reason for existing. You are saying, "Billy has a dog but that doesn't mean that he likes dogs or doesn't like dogs". So that sentence basically has no value at all.

When you say "some of the points of information may prove useful in countering Republican disinformation", tells me that you are speaking of information coming in as a result of the website. Since you are saying "may", that also opens the possibility that it "may not". In other words you are making two scenarios that speak of something that may or may not produce a result by actions which may or may not occur...in other words, you are basically saying nothing definitive in that statement, which gives it no purpose and adds nothing of value to the topic. Since you are saying that some of the information "may prove useful"  tells me that you feel the website created may have value, that tells me that you approve of the site.

Goodness, they're swamped with information about us now.  They have so much information, they have no idea what to do with it, what's important and what isn't or how to organize it. What the don't know for sure could probably be inferred from consumer data gather by private companies on the web.  The government doesn't need your little grandson.  Or your little dog, too.

You had said before this ending As for having an army of informants looking for whispers from Uncle Igor and Aunt It and turning them in for chump change and a pat on the back, why? That says to me that you feel a site asking for informants to send in information they happen to pick up makes no sense. Then you say The Right Wing hasn't been shy about any of them, and the need for a special snitch brigade is sorta stupid. which says to me that you are calling Attackwatch a stupid idea.

The sentence Goodness, they're swamped with information about us now.  They have so much information, they have no idea what to do with it, what's important and what isn't or how to organize it. had me confused. I wasn't sure who THEY referred to. The Democrats? The Republican? Government in general?  Then you finish it with The government doesn't need your little grandson.  Or your little dog, too. which, once again tells me that there is really no need for the site at all.

So we have the first part saying that you feel the site may produce some useful information and the second part saying it's a stupid idea with no value.

Whether you meant it that way or not, that's what I read. I guess we will just have to leave it up to other individuals to have their own opinions of what they think you meant.

Thanks again for taking the time to try to explain.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


15 posted 09-21-2011 02:34 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Well, I can see that I'm miscommunicated very badly, and I'm sorry about that.

     I think attackwatch is a good idea, but for different reasons than the ones that you understand me to be voicing.  

     Republicans are way ahead of Democrats in party organization, getting out a unified message and working together.  I think they've done enormous work on this area since 1964.I don't agree with the message, but I admire the skill and the organization involved.

     Some of the messages tha the Republicans put out require a unified response, because they come from a variety of different sources all at the same time and they are misinformation, distractions, disinformation or outright lies that need to be responded to in a unified fashion with well researched facts.    Some of the less recent ones to avoid stirring up recent feelings included allegations that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 bombings, that the cost of the war in Iraq would never go above half a billion dollars, that Al Qaida was responsible for the war in Iraq and it was being conducted with the help of Osama Bin Ladin, that  There was a current threat of America being bombed by Iraqis with atomic weapons.  And those are only some of the Iraq War allegations that came from the right.

     Death Panels and the attempt to blame the debt on President Obama are more directly political issues.  I won't sidestep President Obama's stimulus package; I'll say, in fact that it was too small, as a matter of personal opinion, and I know that we disagree on the rightness or wrongness of that move in terms of economics.  But a statement that  tries to lay the entire economic problem on President Obama deserves a strong and factual response that lays out the facts that are not being stated in this case by the Republicans, because we are talking about an Attackwatch set up by Democrats in this case.  Not because Democrats are incapable of being jerks as well, simply because that's the subject under discussion.

     So, yeah, I think the organization is a fine idea.

     I'd think an organization run by Republicans set up to counter any lies the Republicans felt the Democrats were trying to foist on the public would be a great idea as well.  I's be fascinated to see what actual lies the Republicans thought the Democrats were getting away with, and I'd be fascinated to see the response from the Democrats and the fact-checking groups to the information put out by both sides.

     I don't find this silly at all.

     Some of the issues are very much likle the kind of He said, she said issues you get in family therapy, and seeing the interplay between the two sort of group dynamics is fascinating.  Sometimes it makes me wonder how human beings in general ever manage to get anything done.  

     At the same time, informants are really much use.

     I think the idea is best when it's used as a way of identifying attacks by content, not by who made them, and by helping formulate some sort of thoughtful response to them.  "You're hearing more stuff about death panels on the Attackwatch lines today, let's talk about why the idea of death panels is a totally screwballl reaction to this initiative."  And then folks developo a response that looks at what the notion of death panels is one that doesn't really make sense.

     The idea is to affect the thinking of the electorate, not to make people paranoid about expressing their opinions.  As a Democrat, I want to know what people are thinking so I can respond to those thoughts, not so I can shut them down

     I don't know if that helps clarify things any further or not.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 09-21-2011 08:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'd think an organization run by Republicans set up to counter any lies the Republicans felt the Democrats were trying to foist on the public would be a great idea as well.  I's be fascinated to see what actual lies the Republicans thought the Democrats were getting away with, and I'd be fascinated to see the response from the Democrats and the fact-checking groups to the information put out by both sides.

I doubt you will see that organization formed, Bob. Republicans are not that paranoid. They didn't even bother responding much to MIchael Moore's trash, lies and misconceptions in his movie. They did not stoop that low and also realized that it would be a waste of time.

The only people that will be spurred on by Attackwatch will be democrats who will agree with anything there, regardless and perhaps independents who will be turned off by the setup of the site, as Essorant was. it will be a pep rally, nothing more. If anyone really wants to check out the validity of comments, they can easily go to Factcheck, Snopes or a variety of sites. They won't say, Yeah, that's right because Billy Bob in Poukeepsie thinks so.

I do have to smile, though, at the poor people working For Attackwatch. Can you even imagine the barrage of information, and the absurdity of the majority of it? How would you like to have that job??? I'm familiar with the calls that 911 operators are deluged with, and the lunacy of most of them. I would love to see a compilation of the calls they receive atAttackwatch. It would be a best seller for sure!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


17 posted 09-21-2011 07:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Uh, Mike?

     Have you actually looked at the site?  Your description doesn't appear to resemble the actual site itself at all, and the more you speak about it, the further away from the actual site itself you seem to be drifting.  In fact, the more you talk about it, the more reason I see for the site's existence, because what you're talking about doesn't even seem to come close to what's there.

     The actual link is, as you'd imagine,

Attackwatch.com


and it simply lays out some factual responses to common Republican talking points that Democrats get bombarded with on a daily basis.

     Please don't take my word for it.  Or Fox news, either look for yourself, and base your criticism on what you see.  I don't expect you to be free of criticism.  I'd like it if it was more obvious to me that your criticisms were more clearly based on what you've seen yourself, in context; but I understand that your first concern should be the truth rather than pleasing me.  And that's fine with me too.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 09-21-2011 08:52 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course I visited the site, Bob, as did Essorant. it is red, black and white with lines through the faces of those they are denigrating. It's also a site for attacking Republicans. In other words it is doing what it claims to be fighting. It would be easier to relate to it if it did what it advertises to do, which is provide answers to current smears and call for others to report smears they encounter. Instead, the first thing you see is them attacking Republicans. They are simply showing that they are what they are proposing they are  against.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


19 posted 09-21-2011 09:31 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/p ublic_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance


So how hard is it for some to believe Der Bush is at it again . . .

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


20 posted 09-21-2011 11:09 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mike, I don't doubt that you saw what you say you saw.  Obviously, the Photos don't come through on my level of computer skill, but  as for the text, this is what I saw.  A lot of it might have been written by Mike, I thought, though I'm not certain how frequent that situation actually is:
AOL
MY AOL
MAIL
MAKE AOL MY HOMEPAGE

WebImagesVideoNewsLocalmore

Welcome, bobkaven
Sign Out
Main
People Connection
Blogs
Photos
Profiles

Was There a Case for War? > START FIGHTING BACK FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA ...Community Standards | My Boards | Settings | Help
START FIGHTING BACK FOR P...
Subscribe to this Thread:
  RSS Feed  AOL Alerts
Add to My Boards
Create New Thread
Obama Final Push/Pales... < Previous Thread | Next Thread > GOT AN EMAIL REPLY FRO...
Messages: 1 - 5 of 129 List All | List Unread of 26 Go>>|
START FIGHTING BACK FOR PRES...   Mark Thread Read
#1 - Posted on 9/13/11 at 08:30 PM

farmsisback550l
View Profile
Send Mail
Ignore Author
Send IM
Rating:  (by 31 people)
Did you find this post useful?
Yes or No
  
                        
                                                                        News Feed: Rick Perrys massive jobs lie                Find out more ➤                                                                                  News Feed: Romneys job chart shows flawed understanding of the facts                Find out more ➤                                                                                  News Feed: Glenn Beck twists the facts on Israel                Find out more ➤                                                                  Rick Perry's massive jobs lie                                                                                                                  Romney's job chart shows flawed understanding of the facts                                                                                                                  Glenn Beck twists the facts on Israel                                                                                    Attack files        Immigration Reform Inaccuracies more  
Republican media figures have accused President Obama of refusing to deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants.
            Israel and Middle East Falsehoods more  
President Obamas opponents have falsely suggested that the President has not been a strong ally to Israel.
            Gun Control Gossip more  
Public figures have made outlandish claims that  President Obama is planning to use a United Nations treaty to take away  legal firearms from gun owners in the US.
            TARP Bank Bailout Smears more  
Attacks claiming the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was signed into law by President Obama are factually incorrect.
      Follow @attackwatch + use #attackwatch
                            @AttackWatch                        See a new attack on the President or his record? Use #attackwatch to report it and discuss attacks as they happen.                                                  @AttackWatch                        Mitt Romney blamed job losses in 2007 and 2008 on Obamabefore the President even took office. http://t.co/egO90NR #AttackWatch                                                  @AttackWatch                        Introducing Attack Watch: your source for the latest information about attacks and the truth behind them. http://t.co/62YkjXZ                                                  @AttackWatch                        Were responding to these attacks with the truthand we need your help to spread it. http://t.co/62YkjXZ                  
  Report an attack                            Your email                                      Content of attack or link                                      Attack Type                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Attach      
upload a photo or video
              
Submission Terms
        
            Paid for by Obama for America
Copyright 2011 by Obama for America
    Privacy Policy    Terms of Service
Reply to Message Mark Message Unread | Notify AOL
(Msg Id: 535768:747428)
#2 - Posted on 9/13/11 at 08:36 PMRe: Post #1

pphilsings33ss33
View Profile
Send Mail
Ignore Author
Send IM
Rating:  (by 20 people)
Did you find this post useful?
Yes or No
The solar energy firm Solyndra was once the poster child of the Obama administration's efforts to create green jobs. Now, its the target of both criminal and congressional investigations.
"Because there's so much concern about where the money went, how it was spent, and is there fraud and abuse," said Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of a House subcommittee investigating Solyndra.
And Ronnie Greene of the Center for Public Integrity notes that Solyndra was key in the Obama administration's efforts to promote alternative energy.
"It really was in a lot of ways the flagship because it was the first energy loan guarantee by the administration and it was announced with great fanfare back in 2009," he said.
Solyndra got a $535 million loan from the federal government, the first in tens of billions of dollars in loans to green companies, which President Obama personally touted in a visit to the company last year.
But earlier this week, the FBI and the inspector general of the Energy Department raided the company's offices.
An outside investigation of the loan to Solyndra found that earlier this year, the company asked the federal government for more time to repay the loan, which resulted in a very unusual arrangement.
"As part of that agreement, Greene said, "the Department of Energy was allowed to sit in on board meetings of Solyndra incorporated."
That suggests to Greene and others that the administration should have had some sense that the company, along with taxpayers' money, was in jeopardy.
"These are the key months in which Solyndra's fortunes really failed, Greene said. They really fell down, so it's important to hear from DOE on what did you see, what did you hear, did that raise alarm bells with you?"
The founder and other executives of the company contributed and raised large amounts of money for Obama. And they were cozy enough to visit the White House often.
"It appears to be at least 20 times, said Stearns. "So what were they doing at the White House?"
If the White House was objective about the company, he asks, why was it so intimately involved with the company's executives? And why, Stearns and a congressional committee want to know, are hedge funds first in line to get their money back before the taxpayers?
"It's a very unusual arrangement, Stearns said. "I think the Department of Energy has to tell us how they could do this and whether it is, shall we say, breaking the law."
A House committee has subpoenaed the chief executive officer of the company to testify next week. The investigation of Solyndra along with tens of billions of dollars in loans to other green ventures is only beginning.



Reply to Message Mark Message Unread | Notify AOL
(Msg Id: 535768:747440)
#3 - Posted on 9/14/11 at 12:44 PMRe: Post #2

PonteVedraMan
View Profile
Send Mail
Ignore Author
Send IM
Rating:  (by 16 people)
Did you find this post useful?
Yes or No
You are so right.  And you have the union thugs visiting the White House daily as well preaching communism to go along with the lies Obama tells every day.  The lies he has told the American people in two years would fill a book the size of the bible.

Reply to Message Mark Message Unread | Notify AOL
(Msg Id: 535768:748066)
#4 - Posted on 9/14/11 at 07:39 PMRe: Post #3

User539279
View Profile
Send Mail
Ignore Author
Send IM
Rating:  (by 18 people)
Did you find this post useful?
Yes or No
Lolol, thanks guys for playing right into The President's hands. Also I so hope Perry will be the GOP nominee against Pres. Obama, that will be a gift... he will mop the floor with Perry, then use him like a rag doll in any debate, b/c Perry is not Pres. Obama's intellectual equal and you jealous hacks know it. So keep the stupid, made-up propaganda coming, they will only make you look worse and less smart! ....Read our lips, no new Texans!

Reply to Message Mark Message Unread | Notify AOL
(Msg Id: 535768:748717)
#5 - Posted on 9/14/11 at 08:08 PMRe: Post #4

dwaindholmes
View Profile
Send Mail
Ignore Author
Send IM
Rating:  (by 14 people)
Did you find this post useful?
Yes or No
Never read so many lies in one place in my life.This site is great for a laugh.2012 is going to be just like NY & NV Obama down in defeat.Still blaming Bush for economy.A lie!!The libs started the meltdown by forcing banks to make sub prime loans and You can go to You Tube and search for---#1-- How the democrats caused the financial crisis and--#2- Timeline Bush,McCain warning democrats of meltdown plus there are several others.The people involved are on camera in their own words and yes the lying Obama is on the #1 bragging how He sued Citi-Bank to force them to make these loans which were the cause of the meltdown in the first place.Oh yes guess who Obama brought the suit for?that oh so crooked ACORN.
Then all the lies about not knowing what REV WRIGHT stood for after going to His church for 20 years.This is just a couple of things He has lied about.I could go on for an hour and not list them all.
Sorry to say but there is a lot of truth in the joke going around.How can You tell if Obama is lying?If His mouth is moving!!
Don't forget about His buddy Soros.

Reply to Message Mark Message Unread | Notify AOL
(Msg Id: 535768:748770)
Community Standards | My Boards | Settings | Help Create New Thread
Note: Threads that have been read are marked with a:    of 26 Go>>|
Reply to: START FIGHTING BACK FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA AT ATTACHWATCH.COM

Include My Signature Note: Your Login ID will be displayed after post.
Obama Final Push/Pales... < Previous Thread | Next Thread > GOT AN EMAIL REPLY FRO...
Search Message Boards for:
    
Messages Posted in the:   Last 7 Days   Last 30 Days

My Boards
Mark your favorite boards one click away
Add to My Boards
Recent Boards
Was There a C... 37049
Related Links
AOL News: See Top Stories
Opinions: Read Today\'s Views

More in pc: Main | Message Boards | Blogs | Photos | Profiles | Chat | Search
Download AOL | Updated Terms Of Service | Updated Privacy Policy | Trademarks | Site Map | Help
Browse through message boards at AOL People Connection. Find a message board dedicated to your favorite subjects and express your views in our discussion forums.
2007 AOL, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


21 posted 09-21-2011 11:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Bob, this is how it begins..

News Feed: Rick Perrys massive jobs lie Find out more
News Feed: Romneys job chart shows flawed understanding of the facts Find out more  News Feed: Glenn Beck twists the facts on Israel Find out more
Rick Perry's massive jobs lie Romney's job chart shows flawed understanding of the facts
Glenn Beck twists the facts on Israel Attack files Immigration Reform Inaccuracies more

Above these comments, there are pictures of Perry, Romney, and Beck with black linesthrough their faces. As I said, they open their site by doing what they  claim is unfair. No wonder the site is a laughingstock!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


22 posted 09-21-2011 11:32 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This is the only response you show favorable to the Democrats..

Lolol, thanks guys for playing right into The President's hands. Also I so hope Perry will be the GOP nominee against Pres. Obama, that will be a gift... he will mop the floor with Perry, then use him like a rag doll in any debate, b/c Perry is not Pres. Obama's intellectual equal and you jealous hacks know it. So keep the stupid, made-up propaganda coming, they will only make you look worse and less smart! ....Read our lips, no new Texans!

Do you see any reporting of slurs against Obama there? Nope, just ranting against Perry. That's all this site will be used for.

It's a joke...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


23 posted 09-22-2011 12:54 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     They report bad facts used by Republicans and offer rebuttal facts.

     The Problem is with the bad facts, no matter who uses them.  If the democrats use them, then the democrats should get slammed as well.  

     I was struck by the comments about the Green Company that both Obama and the Party backed and which has gone seriously south.  The report was published, but I see no rebuttals on the site abouit it.  I thought that made the Democrats look bad, but it's still up there, because it's a legitimate criticism and it should be aired.

     Maybe there's a decent spin for it, maybe there's not; but if the democrats are willing to look at Republican lies and mistakes, then they darn well ought to be forced to face their own as well.

     And there it is.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 09-22-2011 08:08 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No problem, Bob. I have no problem with the site being created. Actually, I think it's great....from a conservative view.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Attackwatch.com Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors