Would it be acceptable if the government establishes a national pol

Would it be acceptable if the Government establishes a national police-type force to ensure Government policies are carried out ?

ethmer, amblessed constantly asks these loaded questions. They are not posted to express an opinion. They are posted to spread right wing propagnda. He has every right to do that, but I would have a lot more respect for him if he would just come out and say what he heard on the various right wing websites he patronizes. But instead he asks it as a question that is not even answerable unless you accept the embedded lie within the question. This question is a perfect example. Who said anything about a national police force? Not Obama, as seeing his quote in FULL CONTEXT clearly shows. The only people talking about it are the wingnuts on the right. Do a search for national police force obma. 95% of the hits will be right wing websites. Not one legitimate source that portrays Obama's words as refering to a national police force. It is simply untrue. So why ask the question in the first place if it not to spread the lie even further.

More details are necessary about such a force. I know Obama proposed it, but its purpose and scope were not really well defined. I don't think the US needs a national police force, though. A National Police Agency, similar to what Japan has, wouldn't be a bad idea.

You guys are just going crazy about now, right? Right? RIGHT???

See, I was on the cusp of deleting this question, but this is how the right wing works folks. They spread the most disgusting rumours, so it gets some traction on the web.

Uninformed and Ignorant people actually read a question (and its followup) like this, and actually believe it.

Does @amblessed really believe this? I doubt it. I've known him for a really long time now, and I'm pretty sure that he does not. But because his party lost the elections, this is his way of slowly spreading a falsity (and he knows that its not true).

The disgusting thing about doing something like this, is that if its repeated often enough, then people will THINK that its true.

So, knowing that @amblessed knows that this is not true, and @religionisgood knows that Obama did not propose anything like this, what should the editors of the site do?

* Delete @amblessed's account for spreading lies?
* Delete @religionisgood's account for helping to spread those lies?
* Delete this question?

Help me out here people with the appropriate response to this. Its not a matter of free speech, its a matter of responsibility. For instance, if I said @amblessed intends to teach sex education to toddlers -- how would you all think of me, knowing that such a charge was false?

Would you want to receive advice from me in the future? Should I not be reported to the advisors for spreading lies about @amblessed??

Help me out here.

Are you insane? Preposterous. Unconstitutional. Many states would likely defecate on any legislation permitting it.

Ok I have no idea what you're talking about, and why this is such a big deal, but I'm assuming you mean the stuff he said in this speech about a civilian national security force?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7sfeature=related

Obama never called for a national police force. This came from a speech he made in July about national service where he said: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. It was all about the expansion of AmeriCorp and other programs. A far cry from a national police force.

I think Amblessed should have to appologize for constantly spreading lies and representing the views of extreme right wing sources as real news, when in fact it is just anti-liberal propaganda.

I am not sure what RG said other than he didn't know much about what Obama proposed.

And we already do have a national police force. The FBI.

 
Esconsult1,

There is nothing improper in the Question. It makes no assumptions but simply asks if it would be acceptable. It is YOU that is making all the assumptions.

If you would have been allowed to Delete this Question, or other similar legit questions, then Fun Advice has gone too far in allowing censorship of questions because of personal bias.

I hope you do not take offense,
To that that's gone before;
'Tis only that it's my two-cents,
And not one penny more. §;o)

To the adviser that wants amblessed deleted and the other person, I don't think you should make a big deal about this question or amblessed himself.
You shouldn't be deleting him because he makes false rumors. As far as the question, I think it would be a great idea to have a national police force to keep government policies secure and such.
If Obama didn't propose it, who did? If he did, I think he has a great idea!
I don't think this question nor the user should be deleted. This question isn't violating the site policies. Unless you guys are planning sensorship for this site. Here goes the fairness doctrine.

What do you think the FBI is? How about the ATF? We already have national police.

Guys, now many of you are going really crazy.

A national police force. We already have it, its called the FBI.

What Obama was referring to was optional national service, kind of targeted towards college students who would get a subsidy for college.

To change this into a national police force is ridiculous.

And @ethmer, I'm not sure you're aware of the history of the questioner in this regard.

@leslie23, Obama did not propose a national police force.

My point is there is so much rumor and innuendo going on now about marxism and communism and socialism. People are saying the new president is going to make us socialists, that our taxes will be raised to be given to people who don't work, so many other falsehoods -- that it makes sense to start to nip these things in the bud from now.

A good friend of mine who is a conservative shocked me with the false rumors that he heard on the internet. These rumors could easily be ascertained by going to google etc. I'm just tired of people mouthing off right or left wing talking points without even bothering to do a quick google search to check if they are true or not.

 
Esconsult1,

Yes, I am familiar with a lot of Amblessed's posts. He is entitled to his opinions, and many of them are good.

This question is simply a neutral question. It did not reference Obama.

Would you also be against Amblessed's right to post a question such as Should the government be allowed to mandate everyone wearing pink on Mondays? and attempt to portray it as an Obama slam?

You have added your own bias to the interpretation of the question and tried to tell us what Amblessed is thinking. That's a pretty big leap.

I hope you do not take offense,
To that that's gone before;
'Tis only that it's my two-cents,
And not one penny more. §;o)

Ditto to ethmer!

Remember what assume stands for.

p

well here I go now... and I'll probably get my account deleted for this...I first came on this site asking for advice about a traffic ticket...then I started reading questions, offering some advice, so I deciced to check in on the site every once in a while... when I started reading some of the political stuff, I started answering questions with answers that were, to the best of my knowledge from info provided by ALL of the media , yet maybe a little abrasive, I admit it...I tried my hardest not to get personal with people, but if their ideologies were either radical or contradictory, I tried to provide them with the info that I was recieving on that topic...then I started getting slammed...so I tried to answer some questions fau and was told by the dude that he would delete me if I left provocative statements without letting people know who I was...I explained to him I understood his position entirely, apologized, and then just read questions and answers for about a month, keeping my fingers off the board the whole time...so I know who is saying what out there...and there should be a lot more people looking at deletion if amblessed was to be deleted for that today...see, but that is not my call...I'm not an advisor or editor or anything...but this could be my demise now cause you're probably not going to like what I'm about to say...royalty23 asked a question about 9-11..go look at the answers...she qualifies as uninformed,esconsult1 , and this is one of the answers thedude gave h e also worth noting about 9-11, the majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that the Presidents elder brother was the head of the security services that provided services where the planes were hijacked from. Lets not forget the long standing ties between the Saudi Regime and the Bush family, and that the US has invaded several countries, however, has yet to go after Saudi Arabia
I was flabergasted.. made it sound like Bush did 9-11! what could I really say without being worried about being deleted...thedude is the co-founder, how could I go up against that? where's the proof, even an inkling? Like you said yourself, esconsult1 uninformed and ignorant people read a question (and its followup)like this and actually beleive it...and the disgusting thing about doing something like this is that if its repeated often enough, then people will think its true I agree, but when religion is good said he heard something about that, that makes amblessed question valid. so, the way I see it, if it means anything to anyone at all, is that we have ALL been guilty of posting provocative , accusing ,and demeaning statements during this campaign, but I try not to take it too personally anymore, in fact I'll give a little (soft) jab if need be...but c'mon we're Americans,, we LOVE each other..right?...so to delete amblessed, someone whose coviction to his faith and his beliefs, well to me is admirable, would also mean to delete guys like, well , myself, thedude, jimahl, utopia, capt assassin, and a SLEW of others.. ...OR you could just delete anyone who is slightly right of where the populous of funadvice seems to be...well I guess this will be the test...do I survive to advise again? or do I get deleted...truly just for speaking my mind...

irrismith, while I don't think amblessed should be deleted, he does spread lies on here all the time. I would think the owners have a right to maintain the integrity of the info being posted on their site. If someone constantly is posting lies, they should be warned, and if they continue, then yes, they should be removed.

And as far as what thedude wrote, I think you are way off base. Did he state anything that was not true? What he was saying is that because of the Bush family relationship to the Saudis, we have completely overlooked the saudis compicity in 9/11. And there is plenty of unaswered questions about 9/11. While I do not believe most of the conspiracy theories, I do know a real investigation has not been done, and there is a lot we have been kept in the dark about.

Since this question has been turned into a referendum on amblessed - here is my profile - please review and judge as some here have deemed appropriate, for yourself - look at 'questions, the responses to them' and 'answers' (note the language used) and I hope you return here and post feedback:

http://www.funadvice.com/my...

Nobody is going to delete @amblessed.

My point is that don't just spout off the talking points without doing a little bit of research.

I could say @irrismith molested his pet goat and then someone else could say Did @irrismith really do that? Thats shocking

See, thats what I mean. I say something without being sure of the facts and someone replied to kind of backup my original statement -- now that info is out there, its totally false, but its out there.

That's what I'm trying to avoid. The kind of loaded question that has at its core a false premise that the questioner *knows* is false, But he posts it anyway to get someone to respond that is not entirely sure if its true or false. He's planted a seed of doubt about something that he *KNOWS* is false.

So the original question:
Would it be acceptable if the Government establishes a national police-type force to ensure Government policies are carried out ?

That's like push polling. Most people with an even slight awareness of the constitution -- would be horrified if the government was to do something like that. And their first response is who would want do something so horrible?

Now here's where it gets really insidious -- @religionisgood says that Obama proposed it . So @amblessed typed it in, and @religionisgood continued it. So now its semi-official. More doubt planted.

We have a responsibility to at least spread the truth, don't we? Or do we continue parroting lies?

If amblessed gets his info from right wing blogs, and believes what he's reading...so what? I've been on here long enough to know that I'm reading a whole lot of stuff from left-wing blogs, that is believed by the Liberals...haven't seen anybody of authority come down on them...

This isn't the first place I've heard about a NEW Federal Policing (supposedly reassigning the US Army Brigade currently training for domestic civil unrest and crowd control operations)...so the rumor is out there...

Is there a difference between misinformed and lieing? Yeah...a big one.

p

jimahl, please dont think I'm being harsh at you , I'm not... but what esconsult meant about things being repeated so that peolpe think its truthful..how long would it take a real Bush-hater to get a hold of thedudes conspiracy and spread that out ..just my opinion, its the good relationship Bush and Saudis established that caused tha SAudis involved to turn to al=qaeda to get theur shot at America cause their government would'nt possibly go after a cash cow like the US...and I SHOULD'NT say it's thedudes conspiracy, I'm sorry dude... but his statement came from somewhere..the info HE has recieved, how he interprets it...just like me ..I make statements based on the info I have been given, or exposed to...I may not always know whats right, but I DO know horsecrap when I see it. so I've dismissed a lot of crap I've heard or read, and made statements based on a few years on this planet, and the way I have interpretted the info I have recieved...so here ya go...I'm putting my hand out...to shake, not to take...now that the election is over, lets all get together huh...the next few years are going to be tough no matter who won, and it may come to us all needing each OTHER to get through..and after the smoke cleared, I accept Obama as my President, and if I'm as patriotic as I like to believe I am, I would be the first to jump in front of a bullet for him, just as I was taught to think when I was a kid about the President...it might hurt a LITTLE more tho lol we kewl?

So where the heck were you over the last several months when people kept parroting lies about Obama being a Muslim, refusing to say the pledge of allegiance, etc. Why are you all of the sudden deciding to crack down on this kind of thing? If you were really doing your job, you would have disabled a lot of accounts and deleted a lot of posts about Obama in the months leading up to the election. Is your censorship that selective?

naaah naah naaah never did man!!! tee hee

card_iac: nothing was removed, and this question won't *be* removed.

The whole point, which seemingly, a few people missed, is actually very simple: is stretching the truth, or a quote wildly out of context, the same as lying? In some ways, yes. However, we don't remove those.

I do ponder that, but then, we'd have to remove 99.9% of both the politics religion categories and many people like those.