How An Obama Administration Will Shut Down Opposing Voices
October 12th, 2008 by joe
Here’s a thought experiment:
It is abundantly clear that Barack Obama does not suffer opposition well. You talk down about Barack, you need to be shut up. More here.
Leftism historically has been synonymous with totalitarianism and there is no reason to expect it would be any different should Obama and his thugs gain control in the U.S.
So if Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidency, how exactly will he shut down the opposing voices?
I assume this blog will go dark by next spring if Obama wins, and have been ruminating about the exact mechanics of the shutdown.
I think it would involve a combination of regulatory and tax controls. Something like a “Freedom of Expression Act” which would entail that anyone expressing “political” views would need to submit to a federal regulatory authority, in recognition of the many new available channels for expression in the Internet age. If you are publicly expressing “political” opinions on the Web, you would need to be registered and regulated, and pay a tax for the privilege.
In practice, I think this would work strongly against anyone expressing conservative views. Those on the liberal side, propagating ideas on topics such as global warming, would be exempt from the regulation because such views would be considered “scientific” rather than political. Extrapolate this to abortion, home schooling, and any number of ethical matters: Conservative blogs, publications and talk radio would fall under the code while liberal and mainstream media outlets would be exempt.
We are going to be silenced. How do you all see it happening?
This entry was posted on Sunday, October 12th, 2008 at 9:12 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, Obama files. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:42 am
“I assume this blog will go dark by next spring if Obama wins”
what?
“Leftism historically has been synonymous with totalitarianism and there is no reason to expect it would be any different should Obama and his thugs gain control in the U.S.”
what?
I hope this is an early april fools post, otherwise you’ve bloody lost it, Joe. I am sorry, but that’s the fact. What the hell are you talking about?
Here’s the mechanics I envision: people start to realize that it’s a bunch of crazies around here, and stop bothering!
“We ARE going to be silenced.” you ARE freaking out. Deep breaths, Joe
October 13th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I think Joe is satirizing the extremists on his side of the aisle, nutcases like Sally who are screaming the “The sky is falling!” I know that Joe couldn’t possibly be this crazy.
October 13th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Some conservative bloggers are already experiencing trouble with their websites–that they have been hacked, shut down or manipulated. I believe that when I was having a lot of trouble with the County, and had FOIA’d some docs they did not want to release, and was blogging about it, my computer was attacked, multiple times–in an attempt to silence and intimidate me. I do think that we will have to be smarter in the future, and not as trusting, because there are a lot of people out there who believe the ends justify the means… the ends that they think are more noble…and that individual rights can be trampled to accomplish their agenda.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:24 am
You laugh.
The fairness doctrine is step #1. it is on its way. It is supported by Obama, Pelosi and Reid.
It is a done deal. It should also scare the crap out of any advocate of free speech.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
zimzo, SPMM,
More than one congressman and senator has voiced support for the ‘fairness doctrine’. Given this inconvenient fact, care to tell me why joe is over reacting?
October 13th, 2008 at 8:37 am
This is very serious, this is the beginning of the end if Reid and Pelosi get their way. You will not recognize this country in 4 years.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Zim, SPMM,
The Obama campaign has sent intimidation letters threatening the license of stations that accepted ads from the NRA which exposed his anti-second amendment record. Read about it before you do a knee-jerk.
Obama is an extremist, and there is very little difference between extremes.
October 13th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I’ve been thinking that maybe we should have our own spontaneous McCain March, right here in Loudoun County. Peaceful march through Cascades Marketplace on a Satruday afternoon or early evening during the week. Perhaps a similar location where there is foot traffic and shops. It would only take 10-12 people and a video camera. I think this should be happening all over the country, kind of a social experiment.
Obviously I wouldn’t post here, given that opposing forces would set up a counter demonstration or sabatoge our efforts, but if even one you wants to have a spontaneous demonstration, First Amendment/McCain march - Joe knows how to contact me.
My blood is boiling, my friends.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“and was blogging about it, my computer was attacked, multiple times–in an attempt to silence and intimidate me. ”
or your antivirus was out of date
“My blood is boiling, my friends.” yeah, conservatives are starting to look more and more like a munch of crazed lunatics. It doesn’t help your case.
Our government has been spying on us for years now. It’s made the case that torture is ok. You were fine with those moves. Now you got some crazy idea that the government is going to shut down this blog, and NOW you’re blood is boiling?
Let’s assume for one minute that you were right. Then I would say that an appropriate epitaph for this blog would be:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
October 13th, 2008 at 9:24 am
SPMM, If you think things are bad now, just wait. In an Obama administration with the House and Senate run by Democrast - kiss your right to free speech good bye.
Keep that epitaph in your head and come back in 4 years after the Democrats have been in power - we won’t be here.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I know you guys hate facts, reality and truth in the Novatownhall Nuthouse but if anyone sane is reading this blog Obama does not support the Fairness Dictrine:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html
As far as websites being hacked and shut down, this happens all the time to left-wing sites as well. As far as I know Obama is not a hacker. Sally, if you’re going to be a delusional paranoiac, at least get some decent firewall and antivirus software.
Obama’s lawyer sent letters to stations pointing out an NRA ad was false and that they are not obligated to run false advertising. I know it’s shocking to have a Democrat that doesn’t play dead when you guys try to swiftboat him but I guess you’re just going to have to get used to it.
I’m really starting to worry that you guys are going to hurt yourselves.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Why do you we even waste out time discussing anything with this guy. He is so far out there you can’t even see him anymore.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Zimzo and Marshmallow, the question at hand is how exactly an Obama administration will shut down free speech, which it surely will. Please do not muddy the waters with your bullshit talking points.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Joe, whatever happens, will be done under the guise of the interstate commerce clause I believe. First, look for taxation as a regulatory tool, you don’t pay the tax, you don’t blog. Second, look at that China is doing today with Google and Yahoo. A web site that no one can find is innocuous..
October 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
zimzo,
care to address the fairness doctrine issue? or is that something you’ll just ignore?
October 13th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Zimzo is all about the Fairness Doctrine, he tipped his hand last year. If he does not come clean I will dig out the link.
Dan - yeah, exactly, the taxation angle is what I anticipate occurring. I think it will cost $7k - $10k to keep a conservative blog online and there will be a new federal agency monitoring the content.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I did address it. Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine. I provided a link to a piece about that. Neither do I if you care. I am a free speech absolutist. I do think consolidation of media in a few corporate hands is a problem, however.
The party of abortion gag rules, tight controls on the press in Iraq (including arrest, intimidation and eavesdropping) and banning of photographers when coffins return from Iraq doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it talks about free expression.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Please provide some evidence, Joe, for the idea that Obama supports taxing the Internet or monitoring content. Sorry, your bad dreams after a long night of drinking and a pizza don’t count.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
October 13th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Yes, and we all know that Obama never flip-flops on the issues.. Saying he does not support it is miles away from saying “I will veto it if it comes across my desk”.
There has already been numerous examples presented on this site that show how far Obama and his minions will go to silence his critics, go read them zimzo.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
There’s the REAL problem, zimzo. O’Bama HAS no record. That’s why the Socialists nominated him, so that one could not compare his record to his words. He has done NOTHING.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Zimzo, if you have suddenly become a “free speech absolutist” then I assume you are supporting the McCain-Palin ticket because Obama is already trying to silence his opponents. If he is elected it will be lights out.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I’ve always been a free speech absolutist, Joe. What evidence do you have that I haven’t been?
How interesting that you think McCain and Palin are advocates of free speech. I guess you disagree with your fellow conservatives and think McCain/Feingold was a great idea.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/01/12/john_mccain_enemy_of_free_spee/
And Palin’s calling freedom of the press a “privilege” is a very interesting way of supporting free speech:
“As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.”
October 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
zimzo,
if you addressed it, I missed it. So be it, you addressed it and you say Obama is against the fairness doctrine. Considering his penchant for for trying to silence his opponents, color me dubious.
Considering his penchant for never going against his party on anything, color me even more dubious. If Pelosi and Reid pass the fairness doctrine, do you really think he will veto and stand with the Republicans?
Go on zimzo, answer and I will be thunderstruck.
UPDATE: I fouind, yes you did address it zimzo. thanks.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
zimzo,
as an absolutist, do support the right of someone to:
1. scream fire in a crowded theater?
2. publish top secret material?
October 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Zimster:
I did address it. Obama does not support the Fairness Doctrine. I provided a link to a piece about that.
So, when Pelosi and Reid send the the Fairness Doctrine to the new presidents desk, you will advocate it be vetoed. Correct ?
October 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Has O’Bama said he would veto a Fairness Doctrine bill if congress passed it?
October 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
If Pelosi and Reid pass the fairness doctrine, do you really think he will veto and stand with the Republicans?
Can I stop laughing now ?
He would sign it, and then send the pen to the offices of Media Matters with a thank you note.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hey, Jacob you forgot to ask if I support legalizing child pornography and overturning libel laws.
Sometimes I think my IQ plummets 10 points just by reading this blog.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
And that’s 10 points you cannot afford to lose.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
zimzo,
nice red herrings, but …
1. the bottom line is under Obama we will get a fairness doctrine because he is not about to veto it … and you know it, despite all you BS to the contrary.
2. So absolutist do you support the publication of top secret material? Because the NYT did so I am curious as to your opinion of this
October 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Interesting first hand account of a woman who told the Obama campaign she did not support him, but was pro life, and then the Secret Service showed up at her front door, accusing her of making a death threat against Obama. See http://hillbuzz.wordpress.com/
October 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Now give it a rest, Jacob. I can’t afford to lose any more brain cells.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Now give it a rest , Jacob. I can’t afford to lose any more brain cells.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. the United States.
Now give it a rest, Jacob. I can’t afford to lose any more brain cells.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
you’re serious aren’t you Joe. wow.
Don’t worry, this hysteria is common this close to an election. I remember in 2000 when all those conservatives were saying that Bush was our only hope for ever restoring honor and integrity to our country; Gore was a pussy and Bush was going to make America stronger, if Gore and his climate change, renewable energy hocus pocus were to be elected it would be an economic disaster. well, see, you guys (as in conservative foot soldiers) just don’t have a very good track record when it comes to predicting this kind of stuff.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Sometimes I think my IQ plummets 10 points just by reading this blog.
Given your IQ is 10, you a problem.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
zim,
You want evidence that Obama wants to silence those that disagree with him?
http://www.nrapvf.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=11588&T=1
His campaign sends threatening letters to stations that carry political advertisements that challenge his claims to be supportive of the second amendment. The letters essentially threaten the license of the stations that carry the ads, using bogus information (see the rebuttal on the same page).
Political speech should be the most free, least encumbered, and rather than his lawyers threatening the NRA itself, they go after the stations that have limited funds in order to silence the opposition through intimidation of those that cannot afford to defend themselves against a lawsuit. In other words, he doesn’t go after the person speaking, and state they are slandering him, but he tries to silence them through stifling freedom of the press.
Is that good enough for you? Because it is well supported, and you are a free speech absolutist will you now vote against Obama? Put up or shut up.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Ouch, my stomach hurts from a severe laughing fit - Obama said he won’t SIGN the Fairness Doctrine - Good one!
October 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Yes, I am serious. I would love to be proven wrong.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“There’s the REAL problem, zimzo. O’Bama HAS no record. That’s why the Socialists nominated him, so that one could not compare his record to his words. He has done NOTHING.”
AHHH!! this is absolute madness! I’m serious guys I’m praying to Jesus right now to banish the demons that have you in their clutches.
you are completely flipping out. that is downright conspiracy theory talk. Like everyone who voted for Obama in the primary process was in on a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Guess what, it’s called the democratic process it happens every few years.
Why Obama is winning? You think it’s because of some secret army of thugs, hackers, and people they send to McCain rallies to yell “off with his head”
no, it’s because the campaign is organized as all hell, and that allows them to get their message out, and their message appeals to people. They have grass roots like crazy. They have offices in every town and city in the country. They have point people in every precinct, and contacts in every neighborhood.
How do you think they got so many people to volunteer so much time? You probably think they brainwashed them like in the Manchurian Candidate, right? Or that everyone is an idiot, right?
No, it’s because people are inspired. They’re inspired by Obama, by his message, and by his ideas, and they see this campaign as a movement to steer the country back on track.
In contrast, McCain had one office with a handful of volunteers for all of southeast MI, and that’s BEFORE they surrendered the state.
So don’t tell me “socialists nominated him because he has no record” as if there was a secret socialist planning meeting with 35 million people in attendance.
I’ve been to the Obama office meetings, I know those people. When they do voter registration drives, they say, “be direct and make sure people know you’re representing the Obama campaign.” I’ve been there when people have asked, “Can we bring up Palin’s knocked up kid if we’re talking about values” “can we talk about Palin’s crazy church” and the campaign organizers have always said, “Absolutely not. Those issues are off limits. We are going out there to talk about Obama’s ideas, not to making personal attacks against McCain or Palin.” There is no way you’d hear the same tone from McCain organizers.
ok, this is getting pretty long-winded, but I’m just trying to stress that Obama’s campaign is filled to the brim with honest Americans who are working hard to make the country better. I’m sure you could say the same about the McCain campaign. Let’s talk about issues
instead of this insane paranoid hysteria. We had a good conversation going about the candidates healthcare plans, but it was completely drowned out by this kind of nonsense.
This is the process. This is democracy in America. If it stresses you out too much that’s your problem.
October 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Joe: Obama has to win for you to be proven wrong, so I’d say the chances of you being proven wrong are approximately equal to the chances of Obama winning the election.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Or that everyone is an idiot, right?
No, just those supporting Obama.
NoBama ! Nobama !
October 13th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
SPMM,
Suppose you are right and the grass roots is honest. Obama is not–he says he supports the 2nd amendment, yet with the same breath says he believes in “common sense” gun control … just like he believes in common sense speech control.
I don’t know if zim is now “shutting up” because he is in fact looking at the repression of free speech Obama’s campaign has in fact attempted, or if he is just disgusted that someone from the left could be so hypocritical (i.e., Obama).
October 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”
http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj&style=Default+News+Style&tmpl=newsitem
October 13th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Zim,
Do you support the actions of the Obama campaign sending letters to stations that have accepted NRA advertisements to demand they stop advertising? Free speech absolutist that you are, I take it you will vote against Obama, right?
October 14th, 2008 at 12:13 am
“common sense” gun control :
Obama said: “The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”
I think that’s a fairly reasonable statement, but I also think it’s reasonable not allow people to yell “fire” in a theater, so…
I don’t agree with this attitude on the right that, “no, it can’t be done”
The group was threatening legal action against McCain ads that “among other things, claimed Obama was not a Christian or that he was not planning to cut taxes on Americans other than the wealthy.”
They have a right to file a suit. I’m guessing it would be for slander or libel, depending on the medium. Do they not have the right to file suit and have their day in court?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Public_figure_doctrine_.28absence_of_malice.29
October 14th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Brian, I support the free speech rights of the Obama campaign to send letters to stations demanding anything they want. How is sending a letter a violation of someone’s free speech rights?
October 14th, 2008 at 6:53 am
The Obama Thugocracy:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/13/the-coming-thugocracy/print/
October 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Zimzo,
It’s not. This is a crock.
They’re just trying to sow the seeds of fear, just like the original ads that started all this were trying to do. It’s what fascists to best
October 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Filing frivolous lawsuits is a violation of someone’s free speech rights. Threatening to file such lawsuits is also a violation.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:21 am
SPMM,
Threatening to file charges is not intimidation? Are you screwed up? The reporting of these threats is MY sowing fear? You live in an upside down world. You are also just an apologist for Obama. Is thre anything ACORN or he can do tat won’t worry you?
October 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
See also this recent article by Stanley Kurtz, regarding the specific Anti-American projects funded by Obama:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQ0YjhlOGVhYjQ0OWRhZjI2MmM4NTQ4NGM5Mjg0MzU=
October 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Zim,
Free speech does not include threats. Can we say hypocrite?
October 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Free speech does not include threats? Threats of violence are considered to be assault under the law, but threats of lawsuits? Are you kidding? Where exactly is the “threat of lawsuit” exception to the First Amendment found? So you’re saying people could be arrested if they yell, “I’m gonna to sue you” in a crowded theater?
October 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
ZIMZO:
Have you not realized that Obama has spoken in an evasive manner all the while not addressing the questions that have been asked over and over again.
Why would ANYONE want this fraud in office?
He is missleading America in his plans for our nation.
btw: you still have not given me reasons as to why you think Obama should be the next Commander in Chief. Can you do so now?
October 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
zimzo,
How fatuous can you get?! Threatening to sue someone is not illegal, but it is certainly a threat. Threats in the public square have the effect of silencing discourse, so much absolutism. Brian is right, you really are a hypocrite.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
So let me get this straight, Jacob, you’re now saying that not only is threatening to sue someone not protected by the First Amendment, neither is anything that has the “effect of silencing discourse.” That’s a pretty broad exception. Can you give me examples of any courts that agree with you in this conception of the First Amendment?
October 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
You can start by reading this Duke Law Journal article.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
If you actually read the piece you linked to Jack, you would see that it proves my point. Thanks.
October 14th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
zimzo,
1. I wrote that it IS legal to threaten to sue, therefore since it IS legal it cannot violate the first amendment.
2. I wrote that such threats also silence discourse.
Do you disagree with point 2?
If something is legal it is not necessarily just. Take segregation it was the law at one point, and now it is not. So was segregation just when the law was in effect?
October 14th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
“We are going to be silenced. How do you all see it happening?”
the ‘new communications decency act of 2009′ will rule that the new standard for indecency will be extended to include photos of michelle malkin in boots and women firing automatic weapons.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Using a threat of a lawsuit in order to stifle free speech. You really think a government official can do that? Obama does not have the same standard that you or I do, he is part of the government, and so he must not do that which tends to stifle free speech, either himself or through a surrogate. Obama may want to act in his candidacy as if he were not a senator, but he is a senator and he is sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. You and I can threaten a lawsuit for whatever reason we want. Obama cannot.
October 15th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Let’s retrace this whole discussion. The original hysterical post claimed Obama would “shut down opposing voices,” including this blog (!). Joe linked to articles that claimed evidence for this was that Obama’s campaign sent scary letter to stations saying they shouldn’t run ads that had lies about him and a radio station that got angry phone calls and emails when someone attacked Obama. Then someone in the comments said Obama would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Well, it turns out Obama is opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Whoops!
If angry phone calls and emails constitute suppression of free speech, then I suppose you agree that when conservatives call radio and TV stations and send angry emails they are suppressing free speech as well. I’m sure none of you have called a radio or TV station or sent an angry email because you all are such fervent supporters of the First Amendment.
So we are left with the Obama campaign sending threatening letters to stations. Jacob and Brian both think that such conduct violates the First Amendment, though they can’t cite a single court case that supports this reading of the First Amendment. Brian claims that because Obama is an elected official his lawyers can’t threaten anyone, again without evidence. Earlier in the thread Brian claimed Obama is an “extremist.”
Of course, Republicans who value our First Amendment rights would never send threatening letters to stations trying to stop them from running ads. Or would they? Whoops!
“The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/index.html
Let’s be honest. What really galls you about Obama is that he is using your own tactics against you and you guys are losing.
As Brian said earlier in the thread: Hypocrite.
October 15th, 2008 at 6:31 am
“So was segregation just when the law was in effect?”
No, but neither was it constitutional.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Brian,
Don’t you just love how zimzo reacts once you start to pin him down? Standard procedure:
1. start with an insult (you are hysterical or ignorant (whatever suits)
2. try to rephrase the debate
3. then claim this is something we are complaining about because we do it all the time, to which I ask:
a. do the Republican ask for the dead to vote?
b. do the Republicans file lawsuits when we do not like what is said?
c. do the Republicans send out emails ordering their supporters to shout people down?
d. do Republicans cry racism when they are attacked?
Oh well, I guess we’ll never get a civilized conversation out that guy? Always equivocating when pinned down. Loser.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Jacob, can’t you just have the grace to say you lost the argument?
Republicans did the same thing in the last election you now attack Obama for. You’ve been exposed.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/index.html
I know it hurts but try accept defeat gracefully instead of whining.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Zim,
First, don’t believe the rhetoric and lies by Obama. His stating he supports the 2nd amendment is not true. His record clearly shows he is either an idiot that doesn’t know what he is doing (which may be true) or he actively knows that he does not support the second amendment.
Now, if you want case law that supports that public officials cannot act in a way the suppresses free speech, I can get that for you. Do you *really* need that, or is it just that you don’t want to admit to what you already know?
October 15th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I would like you to actually back up what you say, Brian, instead of just making stuff up. Neither you nor Jacob have responded to the link I posted showing that the Republicans did exactly the same thing as Obama’s campaign, which caused your hysterical claim that Obama wants to suppress free speech.
Finally, if you are going to accuse Obama of being a liar or an idiot, back it up. Otherwise you end up looking like both yourself.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
RNC: Problem with funding, not content
Vogel insisted that the RNC’s problem with the ads stemmed from their funding, not their content.
Obama’s problem was content..
October 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Good try, Dans, but not the point. The question was whether pressuring TV stations not to run the ads was evidence of a desire to suppress free speech. Here’s what the RNC lawyer wrote to the stations:
“”As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity,” said the RNC’s chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday.”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/index.html
How is that different from what Obama’s campaign did?
October 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
“Joe linked to articles that claimed evidence for this was that Obama’s campaign sent scary letter to stations saying they shouldn’t run ads that had lies about him and a radio station that got angry phone calls and emails when someone attacked Obama”
This is precisely the point. There is no mention of illegalities on the part of NRA in any of Obama letters re the NRA’s ads.
October 15th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The irony of your example, zimzo, which I am sure you do not see, is that the law stems in part from the FCC — created by the socialist FDR administration in 1934 — and partly from the Campaign Finance Reform law that the NRA challenged in court!
Furthermore, that law is known as MCCAIN-Feingold, and passed with overwhelming Democrat support over the objections of the majority of Republicans, and is a classic example of McCain’s willingness to go against his own party to get things done.
Has O’Bama EVER done anything like that?
In fact, has O’Bama ever done ANYTHING (except, of course, block a bill that would protect children of botched abortions)?
October 16th, 2008 at 4:41 am
zim,
Illegal activity and the truthful ads run against Obama are two different things. The RNC, was working under the law and crying foul for MoveOn.org not working under the law.
My two cents on that particular law is that it ought not ever have been passed, and my personal view is that the law should have been challenged and overturn. But I would argue that an organization that accepts “soft funds” at all would be prohibited by that law from advertising to defeat a particular candidate. But like I said, I think the law unconstitutional.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Zim,
I posted the links to the NRA rebuttal of his lawyers saying the advertisements were false. He has a history of attempting to put in place gun control laws that conflict with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. He says “common sense” gun control, and what works in one place might not work in another. Last time I checked, the Bill of Rights had no boarders.
You want me to post things again? Did you read the link the first time?
As to Obama being either an idiot or liar, he says he is not against hunters being able to continue their sport, yet he voted for an amendment (”the Kennedy ammendment” to to 18 USC 992) which would have made a .30-.30 bullet illegal for sale to anyone other than the government. .30-.30 rounds are the most used round in deer hunting. Either he did not know what he was doing (he was an idiot), or he knew and is now saying things which are contradicted by his record (lying). You pick.
October 16th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Zim,
Oh, in case you forgot, #7 is the post of the original link.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:21 am
The point is you said Obama wanted to suppress free speech and the reason you gave for that was that his lawyers sent threatening letters to stations. I showed that Republicans did exactly the same thing in the last election so either Republicans also want to suppress free speech or you are being hysterical. Case closed.
You also claimed that public officials running for office are somehow not protected by the First Amendment, which is of course ridiculous.
The amendment in question referred to armor piercing bullets, which can be used to kill policeman. I’m sorry if you think someone who would vote to protect policemen is an idiot or a liar but I can assure you most policemen and most Americans would disagree with you.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am
That’s such a load, zimzo, even more than you usually dish out. here is a review of the “cop-killer bullet” issue and the Kennedy Amendment.
This is the Kennedy Amendment, in full:
Armor-piercing bullets for handguns have been illegal for many years.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“The amendment in question referred to armor piercing bullets,”
Yes, it did, but the reality is that the vast majority of hunting bullets have this capability. Body armor isn’t some magic suit that is made to protect against all but armor piercing bullets.
Review this chart for some background on what body armor is, and is not.
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml
Most policemen wear no body armor, so how exactly would this amendment protect policemen ?
October 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the link Jack, I had forgotten about the ultra-deadly teflon bullets refd in Lethal Weapon.
Do you remember the ensuing panic about the invisible ceramic and plastic Glocks after Die Hard 2 ?
October 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The trick for the leftists is to ban non-lead-core bullets because they are “armor-piercing,” then ban all lead-core bullets as environmental hazards.