9
   

Obama Campaign wants to silence critics

 
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:35 pm
@FreeDuck,
A blog entry does not reflect the actions of his campaign. Nor does this blog entry justify the Oblama campaigns attempt to silence free speech.
Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Violating the tax code? Drunk

You will have to show me exactly when Oblama or his campaign explained his relationship. I can't find it.
kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:37 pm
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
So try to respond not like the Oblama campaign does by attacking the question.

Try to answer the "effing" question.


What the hell is wrong with you, wohoo ? I answered your question in my second post @ 10:17 am.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:38 pm
@FreeDuck,
You wrote
Quote:
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?


No, I characterized his attempt to shut people up about it as strong arm tactics to silence critics. I would have thought it appropriate and presidential had he stood up and said something like, "This guy is lying through his teeth and here is why. . . .and then laid out the case for why the criticism is false and unfair, etc." In fact Obama has done that effectively in numerous cases in which he has been accused falsely. He isn't doing that this time. He's trying to shut people up. Why?

You are the one who says it is slander. Can you make a competent case for why it is?

You said
Quote:
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.


Frankly my dear, I think this is pure bullshit. You may correct me on this, but I think that you darn good and well have not and will not forgive McCain for associating with controversial figures such as Hagee, Falwell, et al, and I think it is fair game to bring up such associations. I think they have been brought up and allegations that such people have had any role in forging McCain's philoosphy and/or fortune have been effectively put to rest. If he did--I'm not trying to start any rumors here--I don't think you would think it okay for McCain to accept a fund raiser thrown by David Duke so long as McCain wasn't part of David Duke's KKK days. I certainly wouldn't. If that happened, I too would see it as a cause for close scrutiny and, if the McCain campaign then started trying to strong arm radio stations and contributors to shut up such scrutiny, I would suspect there was more to it than the fact that Duke seems to be an okay guy today. Wouldn't you? Remember that Ayers is on the record that he is unrepentent and unregretful re his terrorist days. He is on the record as saying he wished he could have done more.

Quote:
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).


I'm sorry. I try to limit my cheap shots to calling the more radical Obama supporters 'disciples'. But the rock star, messiah "We are the ones we have been waiting for" image is just too compelling for even me to be magnanimous about it.

Has the Ayers issue been satisfactory answered and truthfully? Or is that what you want to believe? See the difference is I don't presume to tell you what you think or want as you do me. I give you a chance to clarify that.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:38 pm
@Woiyo9,
Addressed by the campaign. Ignored by Woiyo.

You are the one looking small Woiyo. Very small.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:41 pm
@Woiyo9,
Since when is complaining to a radio station about it's guest "silencing free speech?"

Your argument doesn't even make sense Woiyo.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:49 pm
@Woiyo9,
You haven't looked at all, have you? You don't want them to explain. You want them to get attacked with this issue. Be honest.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:55 pm
It's also worth mentioning that Kurtz' entire appearance on the show was a bullshit smear-job.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-filesaug27,0,6063772.story

Quote:
A partial examination of the documents did not reveal anything startling about the link between Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, and Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, a Vietnam-era anti-war group that claimed responsibility for several bombings.


The Sun-times, by no means a Liberal rag, came to the same conclusion.

You don't seem to understand, woiyo, that people are exercising free speech when they call up and complain to the radio station about putting a lying, trolling hack like Kurtz up there, whose only job was to smear Obama. They don't give a damn about the truth and neither do you. All you want to do is find some way to DQ him in people's minds, because you know he's going to clobber McCain. It's pathetic. You ought to be better then this stupid ****.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
No, I characterized his attempt to shut people up about it as strong arm tactics to silence critics. I would have thought it appropriate and presidential had he stood up and said something like, "This guy is lying through his teeth and here is why. . . .and then laid out the case for why the criticism is false and unfair, etc." In fact Obama has done that effectively in numerous cases in which he has been accused falsely. He isn't doing that this time. He's trying to shut people up. Why?


Because he's already done the first bit in this case (in a debate with Hillary Clinton during the primaries) and clearly that isn't working. What tactics, exactly, are "strong arm"? Asking that the law be enforced?

Quote:
You are the one who says it is slander. Can you make a competent case for why it is?


I said it's "slanderous campaign attack sleaze" and I think it's self-evident.


Quote:
Frankly my dear, I think this is pure bullshit.

Do tell.
Quote:
You may correct me on this, but I think that you darn good and well have not and will not forgive McCain for associating with controversial figures such as Hagee, Falwell, et al, and I think it is fair game to bring up such associations.

That there looks like one a' them die-versionary tactics.
Quote:
I don't think you would think it okay for McCain to accept a fund raiser thrown by David Duke so long as McCain wasn't part of David Duke's KKK days.

What's David Duke doing these days? Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK, right? So folks who were/are associated with Senator Byrd should have some questions to answer, right?

Quote:
I'm sorry. I try to limit my cheap shots to calling the more radical Obama supporters 'disciples'. But the rock star, messiah "We are the ones we have been waiting for" image is just too compelling for even me to be magnanimous about it.


I would think you would like such talk since, after all, it's all about self-reliance and independence... not waiting for someone to save us but instead saving ourselves. Sounds downright conservative to me.

Quote:
Has the Ayers issue been satisfactory answered and truthfully?

Yes. What is the remaining question?

Quote:
See the difference is I don't presume to tell you what you think or want as you do me. I give you a chance to clarify that.

Remind me where I told you what you think or want?
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:56 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Since when is complaining to a radio station about it's guest "silencing free speech?"


It was not a complaint - it was a threat.
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:57 pm
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
A blog entry does not reflect the actions of his campaign. Nor does this blog entry justify the Oblama campaigns attempt to silence free speech.


I assume that asking Mccain why he acted like a traitor while imprisoned by giving up US Navy ship positions and strength, and details on sortie flight patterns over Vietnam would be defended with the same rigor for free speech as you want for those asking about Obama's relationship with Ayers?

I severely doubt that.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/index.htm

Its only your hypocrisy that insults thinking people.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 01:59 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Obama also needs to tell America what makes him qualified to be commander in chief.


That's easy. He isn't John McCain, nor is he George Bush. There was nothing, absolutely nothing that made GB qualified to be CiC and even after eight years, he is still singularly unqualified.

Get off this stupid meme. It makes you look even dumber than you are.

0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:02 pm
What you're upset about is that the Obama campaign supporters have found a way to push back against the Swift Boating tactics of the GOP.

What you're upset about is that McCain is restricted by the campaign spending reform laws and loan agreements he signed limiting his campaign spending and that the power of supplemental big money negative ads from special interests are being defeated by millions of people making phone calls and sending emails.

What you're upset about is yet again Obama had the foresight to see this coming and refuses to allow him to get away with it by breaking the very campaign reform laws McCain helped initiate.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:08 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
From the article..."Christenson said the Obama campaign was asked to have someone appear on the show and declined the request."

Why did they decline the request? A perfect opportunity to tell their side of the story and they refused.

0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:10 pm
@kuvasz,
Don;t change the subject as it only reinforces people opinion of you as a tout.

To suggest what you suggest makes you look very dumb.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:13 pm
@Woiyo9,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-wgn-web,0,6714747.story

Quote:
Zack Christenson, executive producer of "Extension 720 with Milt Rosenburg," said the response was strong.

"I would say this is the biggest response we've ever got from a campaign or a candidate," he said. "This is really unprecedented with the show, the way that people are flooding the calls and our email boxes."



Looks to me like they just didn't have room for anyone from the Obama staff since there were already so many Obama campaigners responding to the request to appear.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:17 pm
@H2O MAN,
A threat? What was the threat?
I would love to see what you consider a "threat".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:19 pm
@FreeDuck,
Freeducks asks
Quote:
Remind me where I told you what you think or want?


You told me the following:
Quote:
There's nothing there except your desire to see something there.


A slightly different issue than actually attempting to put words/thoughts/wants/desires into my mouth, but I believe you also also earlier alluded to my perceptions as being born of bias rather than anything substantive. That might have been somebody else though.

Also you said
Quote:
That there looks like one a' them die-versionary tactics.
Nope, no diversion. Illustration only with no intention of moving the focus away from the issue; in fact intentionally keeping the focus squarely on the issue.

I'll let the rest of your post ride as, in my opinion, you are dealing far more with conjecture of your own opinion than with anything substantive that can be backed up. I backed up mine with articles defending my points with links attached. And, as we both know, 'did too, did not' kinds of arguments are quite unsatisfactory and extremely boring for others to have to scroll over.
FreeDuck
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
A slightly different issue than actually attempting to put words/thoughts/wants/desires into my mouth, but I believe you also also earlier alluded to my perceptions as being born of bias rather than anything substantive. That might have been somebody else though.


Nope, that was me and I stand by it. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that either. You essentially said the same thing about me implying that I have a double standard and would think differently about a Duke/McCain link. Such a double standard would be rooted in bias, would it not? I don't normally buy into these guilt by association attacks, though I might use one to illustrate the ridiculousness of the other. As in, McCain attacking Obama on Wright opens the door for being attacked for his own pastoral connections. But I don't put much stock in these accusations unless there is an obvious influence. In the case of Ayers, there is certainly no obvious influence.

Quote:
I'll let the rest of your post ride as, in my opinion, you are dealing far more with conjecture of your own opinion than with anything substantive that can be backed up.

Sure, I'm offering my opinion. But I also offered one question and one assertion that I think were more than that. I stated that Obama did answer the Ayers charge openly in a debate with Clinton. Do you accept that Obama answered the Ayers charge? And when you asked if it had really been truthfully answered I offered my opinion that it had been and asked what questions remain. Do you offer any new questions?

Quote:
I backed up mine with articles defending my points with links attached.

Well, I thought I didn't have to back up my opinions, but I'm willing to offer backup to anything you deem questionable. Is there something specific that you think I need to back up?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 02:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
What a crock Fox..
Quote:
I backed up mine with articles defending my points with links attached. And, as we both know, 'did too, did not' kinds of arguments are quite unsatisfactory and extremely boring for others to have to scroll over.

Care to point to where you posted any article that even comes close to raising an issue about Ayres and Obama.

Your opinion was NOT supported Fox. You simply ask questions that have no basis and then accuse people of hiding when you don't get an answer. It is nothing but bull ****.

Why hasn't McCain truthfully answered about his association with Khadaffi? <-- It makes as much sense as your question about Obama and Ayres.

You don't get to pretend you are being pure when you raise questions without any basis for the question.


Quote:
Has the Ayers issue been satisfactory answered and truthfully? Or is that what you want to believe? See the difference is I don't presume to tell you what you think or want as you do me. I give you a chance to clarify that.
So.. provide some evidence that an issue even has to be answered or be hoisted on your own petard. You have provided none. No articles. No links. Just innuendo. You didn't back anything up. You are full of bull ****.

Because people called a radio station is NOT evidence of a relationship between Ayres and Obama. To claim it is, is some of the worst logic. It is as if your attempt to argue proves that McCain is incapable of being President.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2022 at 08:20:43