Obama Campaign wants to silence critics

hahaha, that is pretty funny, actually.

Cycloptichorn

Why don't you grow some balls and admit that you are a racist who would never vote for a black man instead of being a pussy who hides behind make believe issues on Obama's past?

I don't see you complaining about Mccain dodging questions about his actions on the Keating scandal, his infidelity towards a wife who raised his family and how he gave sensitive information to the North Vietnamese AND asked that Vietnam withold evidence about his interogation while a POW.

If you are one tenth the critical thinker you pose to be you ought to admit that John Mccain has a far worse past than Barack Obama ever had and continues to hide it.

Why McCain obstructed the 1992 POW/MIA hearings -- to keep his own records secret. There are some very credible people shown on it. This is why McCain is NOT a hero, and can NOT be President. These are old issues but they need to be brought out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFM1xqqTX_g

In this you will see links to actual primary documents along with transcriptions, of McCain's statements while a POW. The following narrative excerpts below are from a very long "essay" by Gerald L. Atkinson on his website:

There is privately held evidence that belies the public story and it comes from one who should know -- John McCain's SRO during most of his imprisonment at The Plantation. Colonel Ted Guy was McCain's SRO. So, just who is Ted Guy? Read his record of service at this hyperlink:

http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/g/g065.htm

In a private communication Ted Guy states that "…I have absolutely no love or respect for Senator McCain. As far as I am concerned he is a damn liar and changes his tune to fit the occasion. For example, it has been published and he has said that after he was rescued out of the lake… in Hanoi that he was beaten and tortured. I have a DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) message that quotes Francois Chalais, a French television reporter, on 25 through 27 December (1967) about his interview with McCain. In this interview he (McCain) states, 'They immediately took me to the hospital, in a condition two inches away from death. A doctor operated on my thigh, others at the same time dealt with my arms.' So much for the torture. Additionally, my knowledge and observance of McCain while the SRO at the Plantation clearly show me and others that he was never touched. Why then, all the talking to Foreign Press, and everyone else that wanted to talk to him? I and another senior, who I replaced as SRO in the Plantation, because he was out of communication, feel the same.

"JOHN McCAIN WAS NEVER TOUCHED THE ENTIRE TIME HE WAS IN NORTH VIETNAM, and I for one have and will continue to state so publicly. I have a thick file about John McCain that I have been collecting for some time. In addition, a friend of mine in Arizona has been doing likewise and the other day sent me a copy of most of the important things he has. These files/letters/conversations with Mcain contain many quotes from, for example an April 23, 1986 letter of his where he says, 'I have always stated that I believe there are American servicemen alive in Southeast Asia until proven otherwise.' Guess he got proof really fast because a few weeks later there were none alive and no one was abandoned."

Guy's email continued, "These files contain a rath (sic) (wealth) of information about McCain and his deliberate misrepresentation of facts. It proves to my satisfaction that he will leave no stone unturned in his quest for the White House… I firmly believe that we must do everything possible to keep McCain out of the White House."

John McCain 'Sang Like a Canary' to the North Vietnamese

Within the first four days of his capture, while in his initial interrogation (26-30 October 1967) at the Hoa Lo prison and while recovering from his shootdown wounds in the North Vietnamese military hospital (31 October 1967 through mid-December 1967), John McCain provided military information far beyond that which the Code of Conduct -- and that which other POWs, while undergoing extreme torture (see above) -- refused to divulge to the enemy. Colonel Ted Guy gathered information from various sources -- McCain interviews with Hanoi correspondents which were broadcast to American Servicemen in South Vietnam (31 October 1967), a Soviet Union Correspondent (8 December 1967), a Cuban correspondent (Nhan Dan source 9 November 1967), a French correspondent (9 November 1967) -- a full text of which is reported by the Department of Defense National Military Command Center Message Center (11 November 1967), and another French television correspondent (1 January 1967 shortly after McCain's transfer to the Plantation prison) -- a full text of which is reported by the Department of Defense National Military Command Center Message Center (1 January 1967). Copies of these interviews are available at the hyperlink:

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/McCainSangLikeACanary.h...


There was a much more revealing statement by McCain -- under no stress whatsoever in 1970... The crowning incident that bears on John McCain's character while a POW in Hanoi is his unbelievable statement given to a Cuban psychologist, after he was transferred to the Vegas complex (in the Golden Nugget building) at the Hoa Lo prison... According to McCain's account in the U.S. News & World Report (McCain III, John S., "Inside Story: How the POWs Fought Back", pg. 47, 14 May 1973), "So I went to see this visitor who said he was from Spain, but who I later heard was from Cuba...

http://cryptome.info/cia-mccain-pow/cia-mccain-pow.htm

<snip>

It is important to note the fact that just recently The Washington Post published an article in which their reporter, Manuel Roig-Franzia, interviewed the Cuban psychologist, Fernando Barral, in Havana, Cuba, who interviewed McCain at Hoa Lo on 24 January 1970. This firmly establishes the fact that the interview indeed took place. But you should be quite surprised by the contents of that interview. It does not conform at all with McCain's self-reporting in his summary of its contents. The Post article does, however, provide a summary of the interview with the Cuban. (Roig-Franzia, Manuel, "In Havana, A Page From McCain's Past: Restaurateur Displays Story Of Interview With POW," The Washington Post, 11 March 2008.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

<snip>

None of this information is contained in any of the public records -- the 'P.O.W.' book, the 'Honor Bound' book, or the U.S. & World News report, or any of the books written by the POWs themselves in the aftermath of their return from captivity -- referred to above. It is clear than none of the above authors knew what Ted Guy knew. Colonel Ted Guy mailed a copy of the above documents to the author of this essay on 6 July 1998, before the year 2000 presidential election. Guy did not mean to maliciously indict Senator John McCain publicly during his year 2000 run for the presidency. It is clear that Guy simply wanted to carry out his perceived duty to keep McCain from gaining his sought prize. Ted Guy wrote, "I would like to send you this information and maybe you can gain enough information, for another factual FORUM (Washington Times) or other article about McCain… I have one request that you hold it until we find out if he is going to run and if so, let him have both barrels just before the first primary or caucus that he is a candidate in. I assure you, you will have my back-up and full support as one who has been there and done that." George W. Bush won the South Carolina primary and was the year 2000 presidential nominee, so Ted Guy's stricture was obeyed. Colonel Ted Guy died of cancer on 23 April 1999.

<snip>

It is clear that Ted Guy's battles for the POW/MIAs included violent verbal contests with Senator John McCain, whose record in forcing a lid on further investigations in the 1990s aggravated not only Guy, but POW/MIA activists -- many of whom fought on the ground in Laos and South Vietnam -- across the country. Over twenty thousand of these men drive their motorcycles to Washington, D.C. each year on a national holiday to celebrate the lives of those who did not return.

A public example of their frustrations during that long battle is a published article (see copy below) in the Niles Daily Star by Paul E. Rifenberg of Niles, Michigan on February 25, 1998, p. 27

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/WhoWasTedGuy.html (scroll way down)

Meanwhile, you are critical of a man who receives political donations from a leftist who set off smal bombs when Obama was an eight year old kid?

So its not that I question your right to be critical about Obama's past but that you are intellectually dishonest not to apply the same mental rigor to your own candidate's peculiar past. That's just simply hypocrisy on your part and you lose any benefit of the doubt when posing your questions.

Yup. Dodge, weave, divert, shut down any discussion or commentary, point to the other guys' sins and accuse those raising questions of being racist.

Way to go to get your guy elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/26/ayers-linked-to-gop-gover_n_121363.html

Oh and I left out the "whose is blackest" or "they do it too" or "your guy is worse" defense in ways to avoid any scrutiny of who Obama is, what he really thinks, and how he is likely to govern.

Do I really need to remind you of the three words,

Clinton did it!

That was your side's prime defense for a long time. So stop acting like you are above the ****, okay? Both sides use the exact same tactics to get elected and to defend their team.

Cycloptichorn

I assume you are referring to a 'generic' your there. But that is another way to divert. Accuse them that 'they do it too". Anything to avoid the actual subject, yes?

Divert from what? I'm just pointing out that your side - which are the Republicans, Fox, I don't need to point that out every time we talk, as you are a Republican who supports and defends their positions constantly - is guilty of the same thing you accuse others of, and you might want to keep that in mind before laying down such criticism.

Cycloptichorn

These are all great questions that can and should be debated. We should definitely debate and ask questions about things that are pertinent to his qualifications. Unfortunately, the "criticism" you are defending does not meet that criteria. An organization is using a tax exempt status to launch attack ads -- not issue ads -- of questionable veracity against one candidate. Fighting back against that is not the same thing as silencing criticism.

I'm going to state the obvious and say that your bias seems to affect your determination of what is criticism and what is slanderous campaign attack sleeze. Let me ask you this, if these ads are offering valid and truthful criticism, why is the McCain campaign not running them? Why won't he approve that message?

I see the idiot brigade would rather ignore the FACTS again and just keep on sqealing about this BULLSHIT Ayers smear.

Kuvasz posted something that--shock of all shocks!--was completely ignored by the axe-grinders here. Why don't you guys read the link? Is the truth so hideous to you after basking in the last eight years of constant lies by the Bush administration?

A more careful reading of what I have posted in this thread will not reveal any defense whatsoever of any slander directed at anybody. I think my track record, if evaluated without bias (hint), will show that I am 100% opposed to libel and slander against anybody. Nor have I suggested that anybody should not forcefully reject such slander.

What I have been observing, however, is the rather unusually extreme, and now widely publicized, tactics used by the Obama campaign to shut down criticisms and allegations that have not been proved to be slander, but which may be valid criticisms. Certainly Obama probably doesn't have sympathy with Ayers past political activities, activities to which Ayers specifically admits and says he does not regret, but nevertheless, is association with such people not a reason to raise eyebrows? Is it not a reason to question judgment? Is it not okay to ask the question of why a person associated intimately with people for years and only denounced them when they became political liabilities?

You won't find me trying to divert attention from McCain's past associations, statements, activities, etc. and looking at them closely to decide if they matter or should matter in qualifying him to be President of the United States. I am all for that but on its own thread so as not to divert from the topic of this thread. And on the McCain thread, any attempt to divert from such scrutiny will only raise questions in my mind as to whether there is actually something there.

I don't believe you can make stuff like that go away by pretending it doesn't exist and/or changing the subject and/or trying to make somebody else look worse and/or accusing people of racism or bias or worse and trying to shut them up. And the more Obama and his disciples attempt to do that, the more it raises questions as to whether there is any fire within the smoke.

KUVASZ SAYS:

Quote:

Why don't you grow some balls and admit that you are a racist who would never vote for a black man instead of being a pussy who hides behind make believe issues on Obama's past?


I will ignore the remainder of your nonsensical post as it is consistant with the loser liberal mindset to ignore the question and attack the questioner.

McCain has been vetted due to his many many years of service in the Senate. We all know the minimal impact he had in the Keating affair.

So try to respond not like the Oblama campaign does by attacking the question.

Try to answer the "effing" question.

Bull ****, Woiyo. Totally. He hasn't been 'vetted' at all. And his role in the Keating affair was swept under the rug, and still remains a serious black mark on his record.

Cycloptichorn

Did you not characterize his defense against such slander as strong arm tactics to silence critics? And then imply that the fact that he was so vigorously defending himself meant that there must be something to it?



If Ayers were currently some outside of the mainstream radical, such association would be a reason to raise eyebrows. But he is not. He is a mainstream, active member of many non-controversial groups advocating for education, of which he is a professor. He is doing a lot of work (I'll leave it up to someone who knows to determine whether it is good work) and is connected with many, many politicians other than Obama. So the answer to your question is no, it's not a reason to raise eyebrows because such interactions would be normal for an Illinois and US Senator. If Obama were connected with him when he WAS an outside the mainstream radical, then sure, you could raise those eyebrows.



And the more people refer to Obama supporters as "disciples" the less and less seriously I can take them. The Ayers charges have been answered, directly and truthfully, more than once. There's nothing there except your desire to see something there. Clearly Obama is connected to many, many people, of which Ayers is just one. Heck, I found that he and McCain are both linked to some of my own coworkers on Linkedin. I'm sure that doesn't make him a software developer, though it might make him a software developer sympathizer. Why would he associate himself with such Mountain Dew drinking fatsos? Seriously, the Republicans like the Ayers thing because it fits a narrative of Obama as an angry black radical that they know will fly with a certain segment of society (ahem).

Bull **** Cyclotroll!!

Woiyo is correct, you got it wrong.

Get back to the issue and the issue is the Obama campaigns refusal to address his relationships.

So far all you touts have said is either I am a racist or "you guys do it too".

How small the Democrats look when they act like this.

He has not refused to address it, Woiyo. He has addressed it. I don't understand what you don't understand about this fact. He has directly spoken on the issue.

Geez. You can't complain someone hasn't addressed an issue that they have in fact addressed, and then get pissed when people call you out on your bullshit.

Cycloptichorn

Well, kuvasz did answer here http://able2know.org/topic/121567-1#post-3378482

His campaign is complaining about a radio station and trying to silence free speech in Chicago. Read the article.

Would his campaign be better served by saying something to the effect that "we have already addressed this issue and here are the facts", rather than stomping their feet like the little children they are?

His campaign is complaining about a group violating the tax code, and running attack ads which are illegal for their group to do. Please, try and follow the facts.

I'm not interested in your characterization of things, as you are going to put the worst possible spin on whatever Obama does; the fact is that you say that Obama has not addressed this issue, when he clearly has. Do you admit that you were lying in your earlier post? For you were, and you know it.

Cycloptichorn