GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 His campaign has threatened a few groups with lawsuits, among other things. This is occurring in the state of Missouri and a few other states, and quite frankly it kinda proves my point about Obama. This is a violation of the 1st Amendment of the United States Consitution. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308 A team of Obama-supporting prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri is preparing to pursue legal challenges to any presidential campaign ads deemed to be false or misleading. KMOV-TV in St. Louis reports District Attorney Robert McCulloch, a past president of the National District Attorneys Association, said that whether the ads could be attributed to an opponent's campaign itself, or another organization, "If they're not going to tell the truth, somebody's got to step up and say, 'That's not the truth. This is the truth.'" The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent "threatening" letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama's gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association. http://www.dequalss.com/wp/2008/09/missouri-citizens-criticize-obama-go-to-jail/ http://www.petetheelder.com/?p=1150 And another source: http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2008/09/no-one-is-free-to-criticize-obama-here-in-missouri%E2%80%9D/ “If they’re not going to tell the truth, somebody’s got to step up and say, ‘That’s not the truth. This is the truth,’” McCullogh told KMOV-TV in St. Louis. The effort appeared to be part of a move by the Obama campaign to block advertisements to which it objects. The campaign also sent “threatening” letters to several news agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they stop airing ads exposing Obama’s gun stance, according to the National Rifle Association. “This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson,” said Blunt. “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.” http://technorati.com/posts/nkjkOnTZ74LG7u6behbQj1SdsAwE5uyFkjvd%2BxWXcd4%3D http://texasholdemblogger.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/the-messiahs-apostles-in-action/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I cannot remember where I read this, but Obama wants to ban certain radio talkshow hosts. I will have to get the original article, so people don't think I'm full of fluff. He stated that we are listening to the wrong shows and reading the wrong newspapers. His belief is that they just cause confussion, so he wants to ban those shows for having an alternative stance on politics. I will be back with the link. Related to the topic, --- Obama trying to ban NRA Ads by threatening television and radio stations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 It doesn't surprise me, but I actually stumbled on this by accident, and the governor of Missouri is accusing Obama of thuggish tactics, this is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Let me guess whose shows he wants to ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 It's against the constitution to try and prevent people from committing libel and slander? Fascinating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 It's against the constitution to try and prevent people from committing libel and slander? Fascinating... Dude it's against the law to do something like this to stiffle the truth. Obama's told lie after lie about McCain and you don't see McCain pulling this stunt. “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.” -- Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/breaking-gov-matt-blunt-releases.html Personally I think Obama's campaign is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Dude it's against the law to do something like this to stiffle the truth.But it's not against the law if you're trying to stop people from spreading lies which is what they're doing. Obama's told lie after lie about McCain and you don't see McCain pulling this stunt. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ Non-partisan site that sums up the number of truthful and less than truthful statements by both candidates. Who is telling lie after lie? Personally I think Obama's campaign is finished. It seems the majority of the country disagrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Fact Check: Obama and Guns Obama did say small-town Americans could be "bitter," and that they "cling to guns" and religion and other traditions. He actually said that those feelings were tied to being disappointed by politicians' empty economic promises. I'm trying to stay on topic. We have the First and Second Amendment being connected in the articles. The Freedom of Speech The Right to Bare Arms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravnas Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Fact Check: Obama and Guns How many months ago was that quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Fact Check: Obama and guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 How many months ago was that quote? Obama (April 6): You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. Fact Check: Obama and Guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 If you repeat the exact same thing twice it does not make it any more relevant. Take a minute and actually read the article I linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Fact Check: Obama and guns I quite frankly don't care what Fact Check says at this point, because that isn't the topic at hand. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/obamas_voting_record_complicat.html And fact is he's voted present on bills for gun control that he's sponsored. Back to topic: Missouri Government confirms their government said what I posted earlier. http://governor.mo.gov/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=EkkkVFulkpOzXqGMaj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 And you will continue to ignore the fact that they seem to simply be trying to stop people from spreading lies and falsehoods, which is certainly within their right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 And you will continue to ignore the fact that they seem to simply be trying to stop people from spreading lies and falsehoods, which is certainly within their right to do so. So you're saying it's perfectly okay for Senator Obama to use tactics that would be seen in a dictatorship? Arguing about his record isn't the issue, the issue is him using thuggery and intimidation to silence criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 So you're saying it's perfectly okay for Senator Obama to use tactics that would be seen in a dictatorship? It alright for anyone to use any legal means to protect oneself from defamation, it should not matter if the person is a Presidential candidate or not. In case you need to know what Defamation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 It alright for anyone to use any legal means to protect oneself from defamation, it should not matter if the person is a Presidential candidate or not. In case you need to know what Defamation is. I know what Defamation is, I will point out that this is politics, something like this is extremely hard for a public figure to prove, but it is very expensive to defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Obama can take whoever he wants to court anytime--that's his right. Whether he wins or not is another story. I think some of his people are over-reacting to some slights when their efforts could be put to better use, but if it's something truly defamatory, then Obama and his team have every right to get the defamation stopped, just like any other American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Obama can take whoever he wants to court anytime--that's his right. Whether he wins or not is another story. I think some of his people are over-reacting to some slights when their efforts could be put to better use, but if it's something truly defamatory, then Obama and his team have every right to get the defamation stopped, just like any other American. Pulling licenses of television stations that refuse to pull down ads that criticize him? Threatening letters, police thuggery, excuse me but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. And his record on the issues being brought up in the advertisements are not cut and dry. Example is an attempt to ban semi-automatic weapons, to be blunt nearly all handguns, rifles, etc. today are semi-automatic, only ones that are not are single shot weapons. So in this case, this is stiffling free speech, not slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Obama is Superman. As nothing more than a U.S. Senator he has the power to pull TV stations licenses and control the Police. If only we had a President with that type of power, maybe something could get done in Washington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Obama is Superman. As nothing more than a U.S. Senator he has the power to pull TV stations licenses and control the Police. If only we had a President with that type of power, maybe something could get done in Washington. Actually it's called Chicago Style Politics, Obama has a whole litney of lawyers, radicals, etc. trying to get him elected. Quite frankly, President Bush is more free speech than Obama. Fact is this is a violation of free speech, and is the kind of tactics we see with Chavez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 If McCain were the one being lied about, would you be so opposed to him stopping the lies being spread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Actually it's called Chicago Style Politics, Obama has a whole litney of lawyers, radicals, etc. trying to get him elected. Quite frankly, President Bush is more free speech than Obama.[/Quote] Don't give me the free speech stuff. I remember your feelings towards freedom of the press. Considering we're at war at the moment, I'd argue that the military and the President should have the power to decide what is allowed to be reported concerning what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blabbing it on the public airwaves, boosts the morale of our enemy and disheartens the American people. That is why the media wasn't allowed to report a lot of things during World War 2.[/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 If McCain were the one being lied about, would you be so opposed to him stopping the lies being spread? If he were doing it in the manner Obama was, I actually would be opposed to it. Remember McCain had an incident with the New York Times printing false stories about him having an affair with a lobbyist, he didn't sue the New York Times, he took them to task over it, but he didn't sue them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Obama is trying to win the biggest popularity contest on earth - it would be absurd for him to allow any untrue accusations against him to go unanswered. To do that would possibly be as bad for his campaign as saying they are true. Remember that defamation, slander and libel are unlawful, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.