How about Obama's Organizing for America astroturfing in Wisconsin.
You stay classy, Obama! [for Kris]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/house-speaker-john-boehner-r-oh.php
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/wisconsin-its-unions-vs-people-0

Quote :

"The ferment in Wisconsin is no workers' uprising against the rich and powerful. It is instead political muscle-flexing by a well-funded special interest group, which is limbering up for President Obama's re-election bid. Obama's campaign, operating as Organizing for America, is bussing protesters to the state capitol and manning phone banks to apply pressure to state legislatures. "

2/18/2011 8:43:14 PM

With so much corporate welfare being pushed by the right, why are we getting all upset at a bunch of middle classers taking a stand when a Republican attacks them?

Btw, am I mistaken, didn't he (Walker) leave the public safety (fire, police, etc) unions alone in targeting cuts?

And why is it thread worthy that liberals are doing things you'd expect of liberals?

2/18/2011 8:52:09 PM

^playing hide and seek? Or demanding other peoples money?

2/18/2011 8:57:20 PM

The astroturfing. Btw, maybe you guys rehashed it in other threads, but what is it about the way the unions are set up that these teachers can't be fired for skipping work? That is one thing I never got...sure, let them collective bargain and dare their employers to let all of them go and see who blinks first. I don't see anything wrong with that. It always has been and always a matter of who gets the better bargain, the worker or the employer.

2/18/2011 9:03:15 PM

well, given how much people bitched about the alleged astroturfing of the Tea Parties, it's only fair to point out actual astroturfing BY THE PRESIDENT

2/18/2011 9:23:18 PM

Quote :

"With so much corporate welfare being pushed by the right statists"

Jesus motherfucker, get it right. Both parties have proved time and again they're out for the people who fund their elections.

2/18/2011 9:25:07 PM

I don't understand...is this and Organization he created? One that is pro-Obama? One that he still actively runs? I mean, why is this being 'pinned' on the President in an accusatory way? I didn't read much of your links...is there an accusation that the President himself ordered this?

^ touche...I guess the overarching point is at least the liberals attempt to look out (no matter how misguided) for the little guy every now and again.

[Edited on February 18, 2011 at 9:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/18/2011 9:27:34 PM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Organizing+for+America

here's a hint: the web address is http://www.barackobama.com

2/18/2011 9:29:13 PM

I clicked on it, and it the bottom it says Paid for by the DNC, not endorsed by any candidate or candidates committee.

2/18/2011 9:35:17 PM

that just happens to be run on a website bearing the name of the president... that was announced during said president's inauguration by said inauguree. But yes, Obama has NOTHING to do with the organization...

2/18/2011 9:37:16 PM

Quote :

"ne that he still actively runs? I mean, why is this being 'pinned' on the President in an accusatory way? I didn't read much of your links...is there an accusation that the President himself ordered this?"

So no.

2/18/2011 9:41:33 PM

yes. the president has absolutely nothing to do with a website that bears his name and has done nothing but support his initiatives since the day he was elected

2/18/2011 9:42:48 PM

Why are you being so retarded about this? The President is an incumbent democrat. Don't you think just maybe any sort of national Democratic organization will have something to do with the President? No one is arguing that. It's the attaching of "obamas" to the Organizing for American part that is just stupid but it's kind of par for the course for Republican rhetoric so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

2/18/2011 9:49:09 PM

yeah. how can someone attach Obama to the organization he founded, which is run on a website that just happens to be HIS NAME.

2/18/2011 9:51:14 PM

I don't get it. He didn't found shit. The entire Democrat engine did it, which was the damn point I made. Democrats are doing Democrat things...I'm appalled.

2/18/2011 10:01:16 PM

so, he didn't create it, but it uses his website, and he announced he was creating it in his inauguration. is that it?

2/18/2011 10:02:07 PM

Do you know how conventions work? Do you get that countless scores of people craft both the Republican and Democrat products we have to choose from? The money and the party leaders get together and pick someone they think can win an election, not the other way around.

2/18/2011 10:10:42 PM

what the fuck are you talking about now?

2/18/2011 10:55:09 PM

2/18/2011 11:02:07 PM

btw, the Super Koch Bros. are busing people in as well.

HURRAY, EVERYBODY'S SHITTY!!

2/20/2011 10:27:00 AM

I was thinking about this yesterday, the States should pass laws saying you have to be a resident (and carry a valid ID) of that State to participate in a protest.

2/20/2011 10:57:35 AM

Quote :

"I was thinking about this yesterday, the States should pass laws saying you have to be a resident (and carry a valid ID) of that State to participate in a protest."

Think harder because that's a terrible idea

2/20/2011 11:01:20 AM

Holy shit that's stupid.

2/20/2011 11:12:10 AM

Oh, I forgot, you guys love that Big Government dick. In a proper world, the States would have more say in how they govern their own state. And if they don't want fuckheads that don't even live there to come and protest a law affecting only their state, they should do that, and it would be just and proper and a fantastic idea.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason :]

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM. Reason : Or, fair enough, if the DNC wants to ship in 5 million Africans to protest race inequality in DC...]

2/20/2011 11:16:14 AM

So are you trolling or

2/20/2011 11:32:29 AM

Are you? I'm waiting on your explanation for why States should have no rights? Somewhere in there you're gonna try to work in free speech and fall flat on your face.

[Edited on February 20, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2011 11:37:44 AM

2/20/2011 11:42:43 AM

die in a fire please

2/20/2011 11:44:18 AM

I can see why it is not obvious, but what penalty do you believe would be appropriate for an NCState student to be caught protesting here in North Carolina without in-state residency?

We have the right to protest and we have the right to travel. Therefore, we have the right to travel to a protest.

2/20/2011 6:57:31 PM

Ok, we can modify it to college students, though unless they actually intend on living here post graduation I don't know why they'd bother anyway.

These people getting bussed in don't "travel" per se. They are hired guns with the express purpose of deceiving the legislators. That is pretty unethical at a minimum.

2/20/2011 7:01:52 PM

Do you know who else liked that Big Government dick?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Rides

2/20/2011 7:33:13 PM

i don't think you call something astroturfing when the front page of their website has that it is a project of the DNC. its kind of tough to hide your origins and pretend something is a grassroots movement when you have that on the front page of your website.

2/20/2011 7:34:51 PM

^^ Federal Issue

2/20/2011 7:39:16 PM

Quote :

"These people getting bussed in don't "travel" per se. They are hired guns with the express purpose of deceiving the legislators. That is pretty unethical at a minimum."

Not at all. Best I can tell, the protesters are honest when asked where they are from. If people know well enough to make an arrest under your law then the legislators already know they are from out of state and no harm is being done.

2/21/2011 9:00:49 AM

Of couse, if they know well enough. I'm arguing they don't. How are you arguing they do? Because 1 or 2 people were interviewed and said where they were from (were they from out of state?)? And how do we even know our legislators saw this news?

2/21/2011 10:19:41 AM

^^^^
This.

I don't recall the orchestrators of the campaign to astroturf Townhall meetings being very up front about the fact that they were busing in health insurance employees. I could be mistaken, though, because I don't even recall how it was uncovered that they were doing so.

But it's not like we would accuse Arianna Huffington of astroturfing the Rally to Restore Sanity simply for busing people to it.

[Edited on February 21, 2011 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ]

2/21/2011 10:20:31 AM

^^ No, I am arguing that "We have the right to protest and we have the right to travel. Therefore, we have the right to travel to a protest." I was merely commenting that your motivation for violating fundamental human rights was flawed: if the legislators don't know some or all of the protesters are from out of state, then you should pick up a picket sign and tell them. Not throw people in prison for being civically minded outside their jurisdiction.

2/21/2011 3:17:15 PM

Quote :

"Obama has NOTHING to do with the organization."

The fact that the organization makes no secret that it's Obama's makes it not astroturfing.

If they said "oh we're just ordinary Americans for Prosperity, doo doo doo" while being funded by millionaires, that's astroturfing.

2/21/2011 3:57:55 PM

There is already precedent for needing a permit to protest. And until the Supreme Court strikes that down, then this law would really be no different.

2/21/2011 3:58:19 PM

^ What if I work as a state employee in Wisconsin but live in Michigan?

Or you can pretend that the states are NY and NJ if you want a more realistic example.

2/21/2011 4:16:34 PM

let's dumb this down now.

with this law, the freedom riders and countless other civil rights protests in this country would have been against federal law. is this acceptable to you?

can one only passionately care about things going on in their own state?

2/21/2011 10:44:27 PM

Quote :

"There is already precedent for needing a permit to protest. And until the Supreme Court strikes that down, then this law would really be no different."

Absurd. There is a dramatic difference for a law to say what groups may protest. If it is OK to proclaim people living out of town cannot protest, why not people born out of town, recent immigrants, or people of Irish descent.

2/21/2011 11:42:52 PM

Check out this view of the situation in Wisconsin:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin

2/22/2011 12:51:53 PM

Quote :

"Are you? I'm waiting on your explanation for why States should have no rights? Somewhere in there you're gonna try to work in free speech and fall flat on your face."

Lol you're arguing that States should "have the right" to deny Americans one of the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights. While we're at it, let's let the states ban all firearms if they choose and station national guardsmen in people's houses. After all, states rights trump civil rights every time!!!


[Edited on February 22, 2011 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2011 3:10:05 PM

Quote :

"with this law, the freedom riders and countless other civil rights protests in this country would have been against federal law."

Against federal law? Can you read what I posted?

Quote :

"Absurd."

Not really. I'm not the one that set the precedent.

Quote :

" If it is OK to proclaim people living out of town cannot protest, why not people born out of town, recent immigrants, or people of Irish descent."

Because it's practical for a State to be interested in the governance of it's citizens without regard to their race or creed.

Let's say I am trying to acquire a controversial county permit to mine unobtanium and there has been resistance in the county to this permit because of fears of what will happen when it released from the earth. I'm a businessman and I make the gamble that I can purchase enough bodies from outside of the county to show up at the council meeting all in favor of the permit. The council has just been deceived by the businessman because they can only assume it is their constituents that have shown up and are in favor of this permit. The rights of those that actually live in the county to have their voice properly counted just got trumped thanks to a clever businessman.

Quote :

"freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights"

The right to protest isn't an explicit right.

2/22/2011 5:11:11 PM

Quote :

"The council has just been deceived by the businessman because they can only assume it is their constituents that have shown up and are in favor of this permit."

Democratic governments hold elections for just this reason. No need to lock people up for speaking publicly. If the business man does this, then go get a picket sign and notify the council of the truth.

Which is what is happening. It seems the people of Wisconsin support their governor in this matter, out of state protesters be damned. As such, why throw people in jail when there isn't even a problem? Hell, it seems to me the out of state protesters are hurting their cause, since just one protester admitting they are out of state implies all of them are and can be safely ignored, turning the public (voters) against the protesters. If your proposal was law, then the protests might be going better.

Yet again, you are violating the constitution and their human rights. Outside of elections, a state government is not allowed to treat out of state citizens any differently from the local citizenry.

2/22/2011 5:33:31 PM

Quote :

"Democratic governments hold elections for just this reason."

I forgot, democracy stopped at the ballot box. Then why does ANYONE protest?

Quote :

"If the business man does this, then go get a picket sign and notify the council of the truth."

Awesome, so rather than addressing the topic of contention and having my voice heard on that matter, I'm having it wasted picketing the out of state picketers.

Quote :

"since just one protester admitting they are out of state implies all of them are and can be safely ignored"

No, it doesn't imply that at all.

Quote :

"Outside of elections"

Why not let out of staters vote in state?

2/22/2011 5:41:18 PM

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/top-wisconsin-democrat-we-wont-be-falling-for-walkers-prank-call-scheme.php?ref=fpb

Quote :

"Top Wisconsin Democrat: We Won't Be Falling For Walker's Prank Call Scheme Mark Miller, the leader of the Wisconsin Senate Democrats, says members of his party won't be falling for any of the tricks Governor Scott Walker might use to lure them back home and jam his union-busting bill through the legislature. A bit of back story: Walker spent about 20 minutes on the phone yesterday with a man he thought was David Koch, one of the wealthy Koch brothers who bankroll a bunch of conservative causes. In the course of the call, Walker revealed that he was gaming out a bait-and-switch plan to tempt Democrats back to the state for bad-faith negotiations. Once they arrived, they could spend some time arguing with the governor over policy, but at the end of the day the Republicans would have a quorum in the Senate and could pass his legislation with no problem."

I also heard that he revealed in that conversation that he considered putting agitator plants in the protests to cause trouble (speaking of astroturf), but decided against causing trouble for political considerations. Basically the trade off of trying to make the protesters look bad wouldn't be worth the added pressure it would put on him to negotiate if the public saw things going bad.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/walker_office_confirms_governor_fell_for_koch_pran.php?ref=fpb

Quote :

"Walker's Office Confirms Governor Fell For 'Koch' Prank Call So we know it really happened. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's office has confirmed that it fell for a prank call"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/scott-walker-buffalo-beast-phone-prank_n_827058.html

Quote :

""Basically what happened was, yesterday morning [Murphy] was watching television about this Wisconsin stuff and he saw a report where he saw Walker say he wasn't going to talk to anybody," Fallon said. "And he said, 'I bet he would talk to somebody if he had enough oomph behind him.'""

No surprise there. Money buys you access on both sides of the aisle.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/former-wisconsin-ag-recommend-walker#comment-1784538

Quote :

"Former Wisconsin AG to Recommend Walker be Investigated for Ethics Violations to Accountability Board Looks like Scott Walker's prank phone call may end up getting him in some trouble with their Government Accountability Board and his remarks about bringing in agent provocateurs to cause trouble at the rallies isn't sitting too well with the voters. ... NICHOLS: But second, there’s a moral component to this. People around Wisconsin are talking tonight about the fact that they brought their children to peaceful, very attractive and popular rallies in Madison and other communities and now they find out that their governor says that he considered sending agent provocateurs into those rallies to screw things up and cause trouble, perhaps to begin violence and he only decided not to do it, not because he’s worried for the people of his state, but because he was worried that it might not play well politically. That’s a very troubling thing to have a governor of an American state talking about."

While I hate to use a Palin term, this does seem a little too "gotcha" for my tastes (just to be clear, be asked what newspapers you read at a planned interview does not count as a gotcha). Still, from a political standpoint, I don't see how this doesn't severely weaken his negotiating position.

2/24/2011 2:03:13 AM

Quote :

"The right to protest isn't an explicit right."

Quote :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This is the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights. I'm really, really interested to hear how that isn't an explicit right to protest without you severely mangling some semantics.

[Edited on February 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

2/24/2011 10:39:00 AM

Quote :

"Why not let out of staters vote in state?"

Many jurisdictions do.

2/24/2011 10:58:28 AM