Jump to content

Home

Obama Campaign trying to muzzle criticism

GarfieldJL

By GarfieldJL
in Hot Topics

Recommended Posts

GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.

 

Are the untrue though? That's the thing you can argue that the ads are true based on the information they use. However the method Obama is using is to threaten people with lawsuits that they can't even afford to defend themselves, that is thuggery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
SW01 Newbie

SW01

Posted
Posted
Is it? Maybe they should think twice about saying libelous and possibly untrue things, then.

 

He's not doing anything illegal by defending himself.

 

Correct. The cost of court actions is part of the deterrent from making libelous accusations. I know that I would be doing the same thing if it was my campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is it? Maybe they should think twice about saying libelous and possibly untrue things, then.

 

He's not doing anything illegal by defending himself.

 

Uh huh, actually he's breaking the law because he's targetting people that are telling the truth.

 

He has to prove that the person knew that it was untrue, which is very difficult to do, and there is evidence to suggest the ads are true.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/26/gloves-off-now-obama-calls-for-prosecuting-gop-donor/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astor Newbie

Astor

Posted
Posted
Uh huh, actually he's breaking the law because he's targetting people that are telling the truth.[/Quote]

 

Proof? And it's still not illegal to pursue a court case. If Obama's wrong, then the case is thrown out. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Proof? And it's still not illegal to pursue a court case. If Obama's wrong, then the case is thrown out. Simple as that.

 

But thing is Obama has lawyers that are volunteering for him, do you know how much it costs to defend a court case like this.

 

Now if Obama would be held financially responsible if the case ruled against him that's one thing, but he won't be.

 

 

What Obama is trying to do is use the threats of a lawsuit and the costs involved to make it so that people are afraid to speak out against him.

 

If these cases were legit though, why is the Governor speaking out against it?

 

And this has what to do with Obama going after the NRA ads?

 

As I said the NRA dug up information that supports the claims made in their ad, hence Obama has to prove that information isn't true, which he can't possibly do. He instead is threatening to sue television stations so they get taken off the air, if they run the ads.

 

If the ads weren't true it would be grounds for sueing the NRA, so he's going after anyone that airs the ads instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mimartin Newbie

mimartin

Posted
Posted

Why is Missouri’s REBUBLICAN Governor speaking out against it? I don’t know why a McCain supporter would be speaking out about such a thing. I just wonder.

 

If the ads weren't true it would be grounds for sueing the NRA, so he's going after anyone that airs the ads instead.
He may go after the NRA too. Right now he just wants to get these lies removed from the airwaves as quickly as possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astor Newbie

Astor

Posted
Posted
What Obama is trying to do is use the threats of a lawsuit and the costs involved to make it so that people are afraid to speak out against him.[/Quote]

 

Again, proof?

 

If these cases were legit though, why is the Governor speaking out against it?

 

Because Matt Blunt is a Republican. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Why is Missouri’s REBUBLICAN Governor speaking out against it? I don’t know why a McCain supporter would be speaking out about such a thing. I just wonder.

 

And everyone that is doing the threats and the prosecutions are DEMOCRATS, seems to me, these threats are political stunts.

 

 

The Governor made some very serious accusations, and the facts appear to back the Governor up.

 

In the History of the United States, look up President Adams, our second president I believe and the sedition acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mimartin Newbie

mimartin

Posted
Posted
The Governor made some very serious accusations, and the facts appear to back the Governor up.
Let us see what is the civilized way to settle such a dispute? Should the governor and Obama step outside and settle it like men? No, no that is not civilized. How about a court of law where these types of disputes should be settled. After all, running to the courts got the last President into the office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Let see what is the civilized way to settle such a dispute? Should the governor and Obama step outside and settle it like men? No, no that is not civilized. How about a court of law where these types of disputes should be settled. After all, running to the courts got the last President into the office.

 

Okay if someone sued you for liable, do you have enough money to hire a whole team of lawyers.

 

 

Also even if charge of liable isn't legit, could you risk being convicted anyways due to a biased jury.

 

 

Do you have the money to go through appeal after appeal?

 

Obama is sueing people that don't have the money to defend themselves in court, if he sued the NRA he'd lose and Obama knows it, so he sues groups that don't have the money to defend themselves.

 

That is legal thuggery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mimartin Newbie

mimartin

Posted
Posted
Okay if someone sued you for liable, do you have enough money to hire a whole team of lawyers.[/Quote] Your talking to a business owner and a insurance agent. No, I do not, but I do have an insurance policy for just such an event.
Also even if charge of liable isn't legit, could you risk being convicted anyways due to a biased jury.[/Quote] If it is not true, then it means my lawyer sucked, because my legal team helped pick the jury.
Do you have the money to go through appeal after appeal?[/Quote] Yes. See above.
Obama is sueing people that don't have the money to defend themselves in court[/Quote] You were wrong about me, why would you be correct about these companies? You don't think they have insurance? You don't believe a TV station has insurance? :rolleyes: The guy that mows my yard has business insurance. He is not suing my grandmother he would be suing business.
if he sued the NRA he'd lose and Obama knows it, so he sues groups that don't have the money to defend themselves. [/Quote] He knows it would take too much time and the election would be over long before it got to court. He does not want money. He just does not want them spreading half truths and lies about him.

That is legal thuggery.
What is violet or brutal about it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ET Warrior Newbie

ET Warrior

Posted
Posted

liable

libel

 

And you've yet to prove anything illegal or immoral that's going on. You have a lot of conjecture and use words like thuggery and police state tactics without actually showing anything other than the Obama campaign threatening lawsuits against people who are lying to the public about Obama which, as has been mentioned by a half a dozen different people in this thread is well within his legal right.

 

If they can afford TV ads to defame Obama then they can certainly afford lawyers to defend themselves in court if they feel like they can prove that they're not spreading conjecture and lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Don't give me the free speech stuff. I remember your feelings towards freedom of the press.

 

Obama isn't the President of the United States, he is a person campaigning to be President in the middle of an election year.

 

 

You're saying he has power that he doesn't have.

 

 

@ ET Warrior

 

Quite frankly Obama doesn't have a case, so he's sueing the people that are airing the ads not the people who made them.

 

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

 

See the election of 1800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ET Warrior Newbie

ET Warrior

Posted
Posted
Quite frankly Obama doesn't have a case, so he's sueing the people that are airing the ads not the people who made them.

Suing the people who create the ads does not get them pulled from the airwaves. As has been pointed out (multiple times) the point here is not monetary, but to get the lies from reaching the ears of voters who don't take time to check the facts (Or only get their information from Faux News).

 

To do that, you inform TV and Radio stations that the ads they are airing are slanderous and need to be pulled or legal action will be taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Makes sense - they should be responsible for what they air, after all.

 

I'm saying the small television news stations don't have the money to fight Obama's army of lawyers. It would be like you being sued by Microsoft for liable.

 

I only said Obama only has the same right you or I have. The power to defend himself. Are you saying he does not?

 

Problem is the ads are using factual information, so he is using intimidation to get his way. That's where it is police-state style. This isn't a civil suit, this is State Prosecutors and State Police charging people who speak out against Obama.

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/29/missouri-sheriffs-prosecutors-obama-truth-squad-getting-old-media-silenc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarfieldJL Newbie

GarfieldJL

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As I pointed out above. You are wrong. They have insurance policies that provide for legal defense.

 

Those Insurance policies only go so far.

 

All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2MxMWJlNzcwMDU3ZTJkYjRmZjU3N2U0OGNlZmE1ZDg=&w=MA==

 

This isn't lawsuits for slander they are lawsuits to silence any opposition, I'm calling it for what it is.

 

Article goes on to say:

The federal Hatch Act (codified in Title 5 of the U.S. Code) prohibits executive officials (such as prosecutors and police) from using their offices to interfere with federal elections. The statute may be of limited utility in St. Louis since it principally targets federal officials. Still, state and local government may come within its ambit if their activities are funded in part by the national Leviathan — as many arms of municipal government are these days.

 

In short the Obama Campaign and their supporters are breaking the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...