I was at first wondering why the DN would pay someone to write a piece like
this, it is so poorly written I was hoping perhaps it was written by one of t
hose unpaid intern types. Particularly when you compare this with the fun John
Stewart had with the same material.But then I read the comments that
followed, and realized that in fact the DN knew exactly what they were doing and
had created a piece directly target at this crowd. It doesn't have to be
clever, well written, or significant - just anti-Obama and you'll get the same
angry white dude complainers making their same tired comments..... With so much material to work with, this really is the best pokes you can make
at Obama right now? Really? I am not an anti Obama type, but in the recent
weeks even I have begun to think he must be intentionally be serving up stuff to
keep the Republicans feeling there is hope to win the White House.
whats funny is you all want to act like this is something new in the world of
elections. it took the democrats until 2008 to catch up thats all. @hawkyoSeriously the germans your going there? this is a website
by a political campaign not the government and it is nothing new to either
party. @Ute AlumniChildish as always, keep up the great
Next they'll be calling you racist if you attack Obama's record.
The problem with both political sides:- Liberals believe ideas are
facts, but ideas aren't necessarily truths, so they can be lies.-
Conservatives believe facts are truths, but facts can be used to tell lies.So, neither side can really be trusted, due to their inherently basic
views on things (ideas vs facts).Somewhere inbetween lies the truth
I heard a liberal pundit say that if this site (AttackWatch) had been created by
a group supporting George Bush during his re-election bid, he probably would
have reacted the way conservatives are reacting now.I don't think
there is anything wrong with a PAC trying to address things people are hearing,
but I think the site name and the way it looks kind of invited the abuse.
I have to admit...about thirty seconds after I read about this hilarious (and a
little Orwell-creepy) "AttackWatch" website of Obama's, I went on and
submitted a "report" saying that I was guilty of...not voting for
Obama, since I wanted to do the patriotic thing and report a flagrant case of
Felony Non-Obama Thoughtism. Let's be honest here; agree or not
with Obama on the issues, this website is more than a little creepy. But it
does seem to follow the playbook used by the drive-by media (a Rushism-report to
the authorities!) where conservative activism is considered "attacks"
that must be labelled and marginalized, while leftist attacks are simply
mainstream observations of fact that don't need to be explained.Bottom line, "AttackWatch" is a gift from the heavens to
conservatives that makes it painfully obvious how Orwellian the left has become.
They aren't really interested in debate...they are interested in hosing down
any opposing ideas so they don't have to defend their own.But
remember, liberals are tolerant.
Sure would be nice if the President knew how to run a country instead of a
poor little georgie, his boy is toast. even queens is abandoning the c.o. 15
months and he's back with his lefty friends in chicago. bronx? i think not. too
This reminds me of an interview with Patricia Ireland when she was president of
the National Organization of Women. She made the comment that some free speech
is better than other free speech. To quote Orwell, "All animals are
created equal. Some are just more equal than others."
And yet--he will be our President for more than 4 more years. And you will like
it. Or at least deal with it.
@ George 8:00pm Sept 15,Your quote nicely makes my earlier point.
Dems want NO FREE SPEECH if it's "criticism" of them!
George, the problem with this kind of activity by any gov is the fact that is
has never ended there. Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, all took
the next step in silencing their opponents. Obama is in with the wrong crowd.
speed, it was political pressure from the fringe left that forced those banks to
make those unwise loans. No bank makes those loans without pressure because it's
bad business. Buy now and pay later is the worst idea, but Americans aren't
willing to save up for purchases and live within their means. Idiots!
@spring streetNo, seriously. This guy was going to be the first
'post-partisan' president. He was supposed to be above the fray. HE IS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! Criticism comes with the territory! You know
as well as I do that the GOP would be accused of gathering information on
citizens. You can defend your guy and his policies (although it is clearly
getting more difficult.) But you cannot honestly say this isn't paranoid on the
part of the Obama team. It is Nixonian to its core. Like I said before, if he
had the record to tout, he would never resort to this.
Pagan/Pagen you make fun of conservatives when they do something funny, heck we
do it to ourselves. If you can't handle someone poking fun at a public blunder
you have bigger issues than I thought. Let's all have a little fun at the
politicians' expense, no matter which side of the aisle they hail from. They
deserve it! they're politicians!
B, I could not agree with you more! And, to the rest of you...I am having a
great laugh at how funny some of you are.
@Bactually the problem for conservatives is they where so blatant in their
smear campaign against Kerry in 2004 that democrats finally leaned you cannot
just sit back and not respond to the lies conservatives spread about you. It
worked in 2008 for Obama and I suspect it may well work again. *8th
grade girls?" Have you read this thread and the comments left in the
Democrats are SUCH hypocrites! If Dick Cheney and George Bush had set up a site
to combat smears, liberals would be likening it to the German secret police. I
don't mind honest liberals who firmly defend their point. I have a BIG problem
with double standards. This website cannot be classified as anything other than
pure paranoia. If The Obama administration was confident in its record, it
would never even consider putting up such a ridiculous site. I expect this kind
of reaction to criticism from 8th grade girls, NOT from the President of the
"In short, the 'Attack Watch' (webmaster) wasn't trying to stop smears, he
or she was seeking to stop criticism."
I'd have to disagree, George. The only posts that sound upset are the pro-Obama
posts and obvious liberals. The others seem to be having quite an
enjoyable time either talking about Attack Watch or Pagan.
Nobody should worry about french fries. They're Michelle's favorite food.
oh my, thanks for proving my point Ute alumni, I can always count on you. So for those of you claiming obama is to thin skinned I have a question,
why are all of you so upset that he is responding to your criticism? Thin
georgie,glad you are an adult. keep sticking up for your empty suit boy.
15 months and out.
So once again how exactly is Obama stopping anyones free speech? if the majority
of the comments on the website so far have been childish comments by
conservatives (as is also the case on this thread) then it is pretty hard to
claim anyones free speech is being violated. It seems you all would like Obama
to stop responding to your childish rants but then that would limit his free
speech. See how that works you get to be childish and Obama gets to respond?
I think all this really highlights is just how childish and shallow the
conservatives have become.
Thanks IDc and rifleman for expressing the same issue regarding pagan's mis
quotes and conveniently left out details on the articles he posts.You'd
think he'd see we're onto his clever tricks and give up.
diagnosis--Northern is MENSA quality. So, you're saying that if you don't have a
job, you can create one rather than wait for one to land on your doorstep? If
only all Americans could figure this out. Differential diagnosis on attack
watch---paranoia, schizophenia, or lupus, but it is never lupus. !5 more months
until America has an obamaectomy. It will rid us of a money eating tumor.
Hey President Obama,Richard Nixon called. He wants his paranoia
back. Holy cow. I knew Obama was thin-skinned, but this is ridiculous.
@ Axe-man "Obama doesn't know how to run anything and needs to
go." You are half right, He does know how to run the economy
into the ground.He needs to go....the sooner, the better.
A lesson in bad political strategy perhaps but the claims on this post are
simply absurd. Worst president in 100 years - Nixon, Carter, GW would be
offended. Obama owns the entire financial meltdown? Where is the culpability of
the banking and finance industry...you know, the ones that actually did create
the mess? I don't see things as "clearly" as many on this
post. I am more interested in facts than rhetoric and campaign slogans. In my
lifetime, no party has been more political in their governing than the
Republicans. That doesn't excuse bad decisions or lack of strong leadership on
the President's part but it is worthy of note. That explains why the general
population still has far more confidence in Obama than they do in the GOP. I like sites that fact-check but I wouldn't rely on either party to tell the
truth...not the whole truth. Don't trust the DN either. We've seen Romney lie
about the facts on multiple occasions and I can only conclude that they were
intentional when he refused to correct them. I'm hoping for a battle
of ideas and philosophy. Name calling is for the playground.
@ChristyWhy should Americans vote for a jobs creation bill that is
unsustainable. All it does is increase the debt. Those "waiting in
vain" will just be out of a job again when the jobs that were created run
out of money or go bankrupt. Stop depending on the government to
take care of you get out there and start a lawn mowing business.
@Pagan:Your posts are way too verbose - takes too long to read and
digest. Most of us are very simple minded. You should always consider your
Pagan-- Im quite sure those with a more constitutional based view, are just as
unhappy with the job Bush did as you are. Although Obama has taken that
"bad job like Bush" to a level never seen before in the recent
recorded history of the USA.So please do not classify constitutional
thinking with the tea party or general sheeple-like-republicans. I have not
voted for a republican president since the last century (or a democrat ever).So stop assuming that just because Obama is in the top 5 worst
presidents of all time, that someone automatically voted for Bush and is a media
I wonder who'll be laughing when the gOpstructionists refuse to pass the
American Jobs Act citing higher taxes on the 'job creators' is unacceptable.Certainly not the millions waiting in vain to be hired.
Is the webpage an anti-terrorist webpage? Or is that what they are trying to
infer. Is anyone that does not agree with them considered to be a security
Just make sure when you report an attack on Obama you change the date on your
claim by 13 days so it matches up with the Bolshevik Calendar.
Pagan,I'd wondered where you were trolling today.as I've told
you before, when you contract "you are" you use an apostrophe. It
isn't "your", but "you're"That's OK, though,
keep chanting "BO good - bush bad" if it makes you happy.
Is this fixing the problems in America now?.Back when the Obama
administration was young, the White House set up what amounted to a snitch line,
an email address where people were invited to report on other people
bad-mouthing the president of the United States on health care. The snitch
line was soon taken down. However, it has now been resurrected in the form of a
website called Attack Watch. People are invited to use the website to report on
other people who are running down President Obama. In this way the Obama
campaign for reelection would gather information to "fight smears." It
seems Attack Watch has become the figure of fun for people on the Internet,
particularly conservative bloggers who are flooding the website to turn
themselves in. The site has backfired in a spectacular fashion, causing Obama to
seem like a paranoid, Nixon-like figure on steroids. The problem is one of the
unstated job descriptions for president is to catch flack from people who don't
like the executive. This can be galling, especially when the attacks get
personal or are perceived to be unfair. Various presidents have reacted
differently to the chatter of their enemies.
I've noticed over the years that liberals claim to be the open-minded, free
speech group, yet when negative things are said about them, it's all-out war to
muzzle and smear the offenders.Ridiculous!Middle
America: watch out who you trust!And yup, trusting the far-right
isn't too smart, either. Both extremes are bad news.We need
moderates in government. Not sure that's possible, though.
Obama's website is the punchline? I think Obama is the punchline. I
defnitely chuckled a bit yesterday at the "AAAAAAtttaaackkk
WWWWaaaaatttttchhh" spoof, the tweets to AttackWatch, Rand Paul "pass
this bill", and Obama himself saying "If you love me, help me pass the
bill" Pagan, the White House isn't interested in exposing the
truth. Im pretty sure they would rather not have the truth come out about
Solyndra and Fast and Furious. Jake Tapper: "in short, the 'Attack Watch'
(webmaster) wasn't trying to stop smears; he or she was seeking to stop
criticism."Obama is certainly not being picked on with his
birth certificate. Conspiracy theories seem to go along with the job:Rasmussen poll, May 4, 2007: Whether George Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks
in advance Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, and 26%
are not sure. Bin Laden admitted to the attacks and there are several websites
debunking the 9/11 conspiracies.And there are other polls out there
more credible than Maryland (Soros funded poll):Pew Poll (not Soros funded
poll), June 2010: Knowledge of politics and current events. Highest
scorers:WSJ readersLimbaugh listenersHannity viewers.
Such broad generalizations Pagan. It's a two way street if you want to use
generalizations like that. When a group of liberals were presented with McCain
policies before the last Presidential election, but were told they were Obama's
they were behind them 100%. All they cared about were the handouts Obama was
promising them. So, looks like neither side then care about the facts.
I am turning in my 88 year old mother and the community is gathering our books
to burn. Poor lil old o is paranoid and can't take ANY criticism. out in 15
months and back to community organizing. that is the legacy that he will pass on
to his children, worst president in the last 100 years and a community
organizer....what a country.
Oh its attackwatch...not sasquatch!
Mr. President, please note that not all campaign staff ideas are helpful. This
one was a flop.
Re: Rifleman @ 12:52 p.m.Wonderful post! Thanks for the chuckle.
on a more serious and relevant note as it pertains the the 2012 elections...the
democratic candidate LOST in both New York and Nevada in the special elections
held 2 days ago. The New York loss was particularly stunning since no republican
has held that congressional seat since the 1920's!!! Even far left strategist
James Carville writes today that it is time to PANIC for Obama because the
country has abandoned him and his policies. Time to change course. Gee - YA
elisabeth | 11:16 a.m. Sept. 15, 2011 American Fork, UTYour comment
is off topic. Are you implying that misinformation about the LDS church should
not be corrected?
Pagan frequently quotes half-truths and misleads with headlines. He cites
supporting facts and ignores when the truth is exposed. He's done it before (we
discussed a military poll once), and he continues today.Bush signed
the $700B TARP bill, and Obama used $300B of the TARP funds when he was in
office as a (not-in-original-act) slush fund for additional spending.Bush's $700B TARP ended (mostly) paid back, costing the taxpayers ~$25B
because most was loans/ temporary holdings. I don't approve: I'm just saying the
overall bill was mostly paid back.Obama signed the $787B stimulus
bill. It was all spending. None of it came back. It was claimed to keep
unemployment under 8%. Unemployment has remained over 9% for all but two months
of his presidency.Obama doesn't know how to run anything and needs
to go. As Pagan says, conservatives just want the punchline.
AttachWatch - I just increased by deductions and expenses to lower my taxes.
Catch me if you can!
Re: IDC | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 15, 2011 "Will someone read and summarize
Pagen's comment for me, I don't have time for the whole thing."Summarization #1 Bush bad, Obama good.Summarization #2 Bush did it
Well I guess we better start spying on our neighbors and reporting to the secret
Obama police so they can get on with their mid-night shake downs and business
shut downs. I thought Tricky Dick was bad - Obama has taken this whole paranoia
to a whole new level ... or should I say a new low.
Boy I thought Nixon was paranoid! What this President is doing is a reflection
to the old Soviet KGB narc on your neighbor play book. I wonder if he will next
have gulag for his political enemies?
Obama is scared. We can't have poor little Obama get made fun of
can we? No we can't...no we can't. The poor guy is getting released
from the arms of his mommy--the media--so he has to have people look out for
him. It's pretty scary to think though that a President has a
special site to target people who speak against him. Sounds a lot like a
communist to me.
AttackWatch - This week I have eaten hamburgers, fries, spam, m&m's, ice
cream, cookies, and white rice. Catch me if you can!
'You refer to David Asman on Fox Business saying Obama's TARP Slush Fund.
Interesting that you didn't say anything else about it.' - TheRealBigDaddy |
11:36 a.m. Sept. 15, 2011 Your right. Here you go: *Bush signs $700 billion bailout bill AP Published by Denver Post By
Tom Raum 10/03/08 WASHINGTON President Bush quickly signed into
law a far-reaching $700 billion bill to bail out the nation's tottering
financial industry, calling it "essential to helping America's
economy" weather the storm. $700 billion. Also, if
we're going to talk about spending: *'Iraq war could cost taxpayers
$2.7 trillion' - By David Goldman - CNN - 06/12/08 '...told members of
Congress that the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day...'
And last, you didn't say WHERE the 2/3rds of the funds went too. Just that Obama
had control. Or, your source. So, your making the
implication....but fail to provide the end result of those funds, who made this
claim, or that Bush authorized the exact same $700 billion dollar bail out in
2008. You didn't say...any of those.
Obama floated through the last election with hopey, changey, dreamy. Isn't
looking so good this time - now we know him.Will someone read and
summarize Pagen's comment for me, I don't have time for the whole thing.
The university of Maryland study has been debunked. Thoroughly. In
fact, most polls are usually skewered in how they ask questions, and who they
ask the questions of.One thing that was missed is that Obama voted
for TARP. He was involved in the negotiations along with Bush and McCain. So he
was very involved, pushed for it, and voted for it. And his administration has
in fact utilized it in their own way.Facts are stubborn things,
aren't they? Polls are not facts, they are opinion pieces only.Des
News, please don't kill this post. If you allow someone to mock people and claim
that as fact, you have to allow this post correcting that post.You
refer to David Asman on Fox Business saying Obama's TARP Slush Fund. Interesting
that you didn't say anything else about it. You didn't state that he said Obama
passed it into law, just that he stated it was his slush fund. The fact is that
most of the TARP was unspent until Obama was in office, allowing him full
control over 2/3 of the remainder. Funny how that fact slipped from
'Pagen. However, one would expect that a person who implies that they are
concerned about "the facts" would do more than just post headlines and
soundbites...' - Hawkeye79 | 11:32 a.m. Sept. 15, 2011 Ok. What 'more' did you present Hawkeye? You didn't say.
Interesting, off-topic approach, Pagen. However, one would expect that a person
who implies that they are concerned about "the facts" would do more
than just post headlines and soundbites......especially when that
person appears to have a difficult time distinguishing between Americans,
conservatives, and Fox News viewers when grouping polls.
Reminds me of the FAIR program that is designed to counter anything said against
the LDS faith or followers.