After insisting no one was receiving unsolicited e-mails from the White House, officials reversed their story Monday night and blamed outside political groups for the unwanted messages from the tech-savvy operation.
Look at what the WH online director said:
“It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our e-mail lists without their knowledge — likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes — and we regret any inconvenience caused by receiving an unexpected message,” Phillips wrote.
“We’re certainly not interested in anyone receiving e-mails from the White House who don’t want them. That’s one reason why we have never — and will never — add names from a commercial or political list to the White House list,” he wrote.
Unfortunately, the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 “does not require e-mailers to get permission before they send marketing messages”. On the other hand, it requires that the emails give recipients an opt-out method. If anyone here received the spam emails, tell us in the comments if they had a link to opt-out..
I realize that spam is not a huge problem, but the recent White House spam-fest just seems, in their own words, “fishy”. If the current bill Health Care was good, they wouldn’t need to convince the public or the so-called blue dog democrats of anything.
Shame on you, Obama. We all hoped for lower taxes, no giving money to banks, more freedom and liberty, less wars. That’s certainly not what’s happening.
#40 Oh dear, LibertyLover comes out of the closet, admits he’s a “birther”.
Not surprising really… disconnection from reality in one area usually means disconnection from reality in other areas too.
The GOP has such and easy job winnign back independents that went for Obama. Simply say “You voted for Obama because he promised change ‘you can belive in.’ We have certainly seen change with takeover of auto companies, bailouts of banks and insurance companies, and an attempt to take over healthcare in the country – just ask yourself if these are things you believe in.”
#42 Nonsense. The Republicans would have given even more money to the big corporations, they’re natural allies. The GOP has always had a closer connection to big biz. We’re lucky they aren’t in power, they’d have given away the store to those nice Wall Street boys.
And obviously you haven’t actually read any of the health care bills. It’s not “taking over” healthcare, it’s making the insurance companies compete for your business, and including a government-run option (hint: option: not required) to keep them honest.
Or do you like being locked in to your current health insurance company and paying whatever they want to charge you?
Someone here’s been listening to too much Insurance Company propaganda…
And what does the Republican party have to offer? Nothing. It’s intellectually bankrupt. Well, actually, it has been for a long time, but the angry white male they’ve been exploiting and manipulating for so many years is a shrinking demographic. Live by the Southern Strategy, die by the Southern Strategy.
#41, LibertyLover comes out of the closet, admits he’s a “birther”.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
I am not a birther (you need to get off that me vs. everybody else attitude). The question was posed what the difference was between the PRESIDENT’s cert and a CHILD’s cert. Unless of course you think the president is child.
BTW . . . when are you going to answer the question on whether you would save your wife’s life or the lives of 10 women who have asked to save their lives instead?
#43, Nonsense. The Republicans would have given even more money to the big corporations, they’re natural allies.
That’s why the Democrat-Controlled Congress voted down Bush’s bill. Yep, that explains it.
#43 Big money boys push thru their bills all the time using their pet political party, plus enough bribed Democrats. No news there. I’m just saying the bank bailout would have been worse if the Republicans had been in control. Do you disagree? Do you think a Republican administration would have given more or less money to bail out the banks?
#46, To be honest, I don’t see a difference between either one of them. When the only thing the two leading candidates can agree on is that we need to push the American People further in debt, it is time to question the motives and policies of those two parties.
AFA as who would have printed the most money? I don’t think either one of them has that kind of control. They are both beholden to the Fed. Why do you think 90% of the population told their reps NO and they did it anyway?
I wonder sometimes if the whole reason for the acerbic response to the healthcare bill is because they didn’t listen then. I remember Hillary’s HC push in the early 90s. The response was a resounding NO but it wasn’t quite like this time. 2012 is going to be interesting.
YMMV
#40, Loser,
Perhaps because one is required by the Constitution and the other one isn’t?
Perhaps as a student of the Constitution, you can point out where it states that a birth certificate is required?
The truth is, one isn’t required. Only that the President be “natural born” with no definition of “natural”. But then a birther wouldn’t care about that, they will still deny Obama is legitimate.
#44, Loser,
I am not a birther (you need to get off that me vs. everybody else attitude). The question was posed what the difference was between the PRESIDENT’s cert and a CHILD’s cert. Unless of course you think the president is child.
No, there was no question posed. faxon posed that a birth certificate should be produced. I agreed that Sarah Palin should produce Trigg’s birth certificate to dispel rumors that he is really her grandson, something she refused to do. Obama, is a good example of where a leader has produced his birth certificate along with an acknowledgment from the Hawaii Sec. of State that it is a bonifide certificate.
Then you come out and claim Obama is required under the Constitution to produce his. That is the same argument the “birthers” use. So, that makes you a birther.
#44, Loser,
when are you going to answer the question on whether you would save your wife’s life or the lives of 10 women who have asked to save their lives instead?
The original question was answered. Then you twisted the question and asked it again. Which version is this one? The fourth or fifth?
Now answer why you allowed my father to die? After you answer that we can let you have the next question.
#48, Perhaps as a student of the Constitution, you can point out where it states that a birth certificate is required?
It’s located in the same section that says the US can provide HC for all — the one you keep referring to.
#49, No, there was no question posed
Um, is sure looks like “If Obama can do it, why can’t Palin?” is a question to me. I admit it’s been awhile since grammar school, but is that a question mark on the end of that sentence?
And that is why you consistently fail in the logic department. How can you possibly know if someone was born in this country if they don’t have a certificate? Are we simply to take their word? (Note I consider the Hawaiian cert good enough.)
Comparing proof that our president satisfies the Constitutional requirements vs. requiring proof to avoid some sandal that only you seem to be interested in are two different things.
#50, Why you would save your wife over that of 10 strangers after they’ve asked for your help? Why is your wife more important than 10 strangers?
#51 LL, yes, we know we hurt your poor little ol’ feelings by calling you a greedy selfish bastard who takes the benefits that other people’s tax money pays for but doesn’t want to pay any taxes for their benefit. But the more you flail at us with your nonsensical questions, the weirder you look. And the weirder you look, the more people are going to think we’re right about you.
FYI.
#52, I am not offended. I am selfish.
greedy selfish bastard
And since you brought it up:
Your wife has some disease which only the $10,000 in your pocket can purchase the cure for (all other issues are out of the way). Just as you are about to take her to the hospital, 10 strangers come up and ask for that money because that same $10,000 would save their wives.
Would you give the money away and let your wife die or would tell them to take a hike?
It’s a simple question. What do you do?
Fido and conFusion haven’t the balls to see it to its conclusion. Do you?
#53, My apologies. I thought #52 was from Scott and directed it at him.
So, Phydeau, are you going to show us how altruistic you are?
#53 Give it up, LL. Asking your bogus question again and again just makes you look more and more loony. Just admit it, you’re selfish, like you said, and you want the benefits from other taxpayers’ dollars, you just don’t want to pay yourself. Have the courage of your convictions, don’t weasel around trying to justify it. Just say it out loud:
“I, LibertyLover, think paying taxes is for suckers. I want all the benefits of society that other people’s taxes pay for, but I don’t want to pay any taxes myself.”
There, was that so hard?
#55, This has nothing to do with taxes or healthcare.
So, quick avoiding the question and answer it.
#56 LL, in my youth I wasted my time arguing with Libertarians. No more. I could point you to a dozen websites thoroughly debunking it, but I’m past even that. Yes, it’s simple, elegant, clean, and pure, and it just. doesn’t. work.
I’d be impressed if I saw a Libertarian truly walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and leave behind all the tainted comforts that came from our socialistic system. Velcro! Did you know that velcro came out of our space program? That socialistic, government-run, space program? How can you use velcro knowing where it came from?
*rolls eyes*
#53, Loser,
Since this is your hypothetical question and you don’t like the realistic answers given, why not either drop it or go back and read the answers again. And this is what, the sixth iteration of that question?
Why do these 10 people need money to pay for their treatments? In MY perfect world they would have had the single payer health plan paying already. It is in your world that people have to either beg or die.
So why didn’t you save my father.
#54 Mr. Fusion, I have a question for you, similar to LL’s: If I knew with 100% certainty that kidnapping Rush Limbaugh, dressing him up in Bozo the Clown makeup, and putting the video on youtube, would balance the Federal Budget, should I do it?
Or, if I have a million bazillion dollars, and LL wants half of it, should I have a piano or a boulder dropped on his head? Which one? Answer that huh? Huh? Huh?
Join the party, Mr. Fusion… ask me anything!