Which one is next Obama?

5.56X45mm

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
We all know his stance on the 2nd amendment...

and now he's suppressing the first???

How is this different from the Chinese censoring the Olympics?

How is this different from the Chinese oppressing the Tienanmen Square information from their own people?

How is this different from Stalin oppressing anti-communist views?

clear.gif

"Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial."

www.americanissuesproject.org/

You can view the Ad at that website. or and this youtube link

The truth hurts and like all good Socialist, he will attempt to censor everything he does not approve of. If this man gets into the White House he will institute the fairness doctrine again and drive Talk Radio onto satellite radio where they can not regulate it.

moz-screenshot.jpg
moz-screenshot-1.jpg


barack-will-never.jpg


What is happening to this country?
icon_smile_dissapprove.gif
 
How is blindly calling everyone who doesn't prescisely with your political agenda an enemy any different from what the Nazis did in the 1930s? Hmmm?

And secondly, knowing that he has ties to a member of the Weather Underground, I like him even more.
 
Last edited:
5.56X45mm said:
How is this different from the Chinese censoring the Olympics?
Click to expand...

Well, let me think. First, it happened in china. They dont happen to have the same laws we do. Second, they censored actual reporters, not a privately funded smear ad that has absolutely 0 validity. It does nothing but defame Obama, and under the same laws against slander (and libel) that everyone else has, I support his attacking of this ad.

How is this different from the Chinese oppressing the Tienanmen Square information from their own people?
Click to expand...
Well. First, it happened in china. They dont happen to have the same laws we do. (Sound familiar?). Also, we dont happen to have stations owned by the government.

How is this different from Stalin oppressing anti-communist views?
Click to expand...
See the above, im sure you are getting the idea.


Here is what I dont understand. You are comparing dictatorships who killed those who disagreed to someone taking completely legal action against something totally illegal. Are you really attacking someone for doing their duty as a citizen of the US - upholding the laws of the land?

He has asked people to boycott those stations or to complain. That is entirely legal, and people are not required to do it. He has put forth a case through the justice system against it. Meaning that he is following the letter of the law and going to official route against it.

Stop trying to smear the guy with your pathetic spinning of the truth 5.56. Its getting boring. And I personally find it funny that you are attacking him for the very thing that makes America what it is - laws that protect people against harm.
 
Last edited:
Yet the left does the same on the right but when we raise a stink about it people say that they can under the 1st Amendment. I am so sick and tired of the double standards I see. The Media wiping Obama's ass, parading him around like he's a god, etc....
 
Well, the Founding Fathers devised a way for us to be able to overthrow the government without blowing s**t up... It's called ELECTIONS. It's called IMPEACHMENT. It's called democratic process...
 
The Other Guy said:
How is blindly calling everyone who doesn't prescisely with your political agenda an enemy any different from what the Nazis did in the 1930s? Hmmm?

And secondly, knowing that he has ties to a member of the Weather Underground, I like him even more.
Click to expand...

Look if you are not going to go around being scared, paranoid and believing that every conspiracy is left wing plot how will you ever be free.

Remember freedom through conformity its the right wing way to go.

However the funny thing is that I like McCain and yet the more I see of his supporters the more likely I would be to elect Pol Pot.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Yet the left does the same on the right but when we raise a stink about it people say that they can under the 1st Amendment. I am so sick and tired of the double standards I see. The Media wiping Obama's ass, parading him around like he's a god, etc....
Click to expand...

Do you deny that he is entirely within his rights to ask the legal system to take a look at an ad THAT CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW? He has the same protections as every other person, its only a big deal because he is more famous then most of us. If someone bought a billboard that said that I personally was the cause of WWII, I could easily go to the courts and get it removed under exactly the same law.

You just dont like it because of the person who is doing it. As for the rest of your post, its opinion and meaningless rhetoric.
 
Just a question... How did it break the law? All it said was that Obama was friends with Ayers... It didn't say Barack was connected to Weather Underground, it didn't say that he was a terrorist, it didn't say anything truly incriminating, aside the fact that he was friends with Ayers.
 
Rob Henderson said:
Just a question... How did it break the law? All it said was that Obama was friends with Ayers... It didn't say Barack was connected to Weather Underground, it didn't say that he was a terrorist, it didn't say anything truly incriminating, aside the fact that he was friends with Ayers.
Click to expand...

Because if it was defamation of Obama's character (Which is a relative thing, but its his perspective that matters in the law), then he has the right to go to courts on the charge of libel (or slander, depending on the medium).
 
Rob Henderson said:
Just a question... How did it break the law? All it said was that Obama was friends with Ayers... It didn't say Barack was connected to Weather Underground, it didn't say that he was a terrorist, it didn't say anything truly incriminating, aside the fact that he was friends with Ayers.
Click to expand...
If I said you were chummy with a mass murderer, would you be happy about it?
 
Well, if I was... Then I wouldn't have much choice would I? He WAS/IS friends with Ayers...

And WNx, the ad didn't actually say anything about Obama, other than the fact that he was friends with Ayers... So he can't say that the ad really defamed his character... How would he word the accusation in court?
 
Last edited:
Rob Henderson said:
And WNx, the ad didn't actually say anything about Obama, other than the fact that he was friends with Ayers... So he can't say that the ad really defamed his character... How would he word the accusation in court?
Click to expand...

Asking the question "Why would obama be friends with someone who bombed the capitol and is proud about it?" tries to insinuate that Obama supports the bombing of the capitol building. That is a classic case of libel and slander. It even tries to use the fact that they served on the same board as evidence of this (this is like saying because they were on the same plane with the terrorists, they must be terrorists). What you also have to realize is that defamation is defined by the person being attacked, using evidence to prove that based upon his point of view.

Someone brought up a good analogy (as funny as it is). "Jesus was friends with prostitutes and tax collectors, does that mean he subscribed to their beliefs?"

On a side note - The board he and ayers were on together help to improve the education system in the South-Side of Chicago. This would seem to be a good goal. So why does the ad not mention that and instead try and insinuate that being on this board was a bad thing?

A quote from obama about ayers - "
He described Mr. Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," but "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." Mr. Obama said he was being unjustly linked to "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."

Here is the "been to his house part" - "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn...."

Here is an equal argument for you Henderson. Should we be arresting every student on the VT campus who went to class with Cho? Should we be examining whether they talked to him, and if they did arrest them immediately? Of course not. Since they not only insinuated a relationship that didnt exist but also a support for terrorism that Obama does not have, it is by definition defamation.
 
WNxRogue said:
Asking the question "Why would obama be friends with someone who bombed the capitol and is proud about it?" tries to insinuate that Obama supports the bombing of the capitol building. That is a classic case of libel and slander. It even tries to use the fact that they served on the same board as evidence of this (this is like saying because they were on the same plane with the terrorists, they must be terrorists). What you also have to realize is that defamation is defined by the person being attacked, using evidence to prove that based upon his point of view.

Someone brought up a good analogy (as funny as it is). "Jesus was friends with prostitutes and tax collectors, does that mean he subscribed to their beliefs?"

On a side note - The board he and ayers were on together help to improve the education system in the South-Side of Chicago. This would seem to be a good goal. So why does the ad not mention that and instead try and insinuate that being on this board was a bad thing?

A quote from obama about ayers - "
He described Mr. Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," but "not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." Mr. Obama said he was being unjustly linked to "somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old."

Here is the "been to his house part" - "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn...."

Here is an equal argument for you Henderson. Should we be arresting every student on the VT campus who went to class with Cho? Should we be examining whether they talked to him, and if they did arrest them immediately? Of course not. Since they not only insinuated a relationship that didnt exist but also a support for terrorism that Obama does not have, it is by definition defamation.
Click to expand...
Ah. I get it. I was just thinking that because they didn't actually SAY anything directly linking him to terrorism or the support of it, they couldn't actually be charged for lying...
 
Rob Henderson said:
Ah. I get it. I was just thinking that because they didn't actually SAY anything directly linking him to terrorism or the support of it, they couldn't actually be charged for lying...
Click to expand...


You need to stop asking questions......and just drink the kool-aid like you're told:drink::mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top