100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama Consults His Inner Petty Tyrant | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Don't forget that many members of both parties signed that. It was a bipartisan attack on our civil liberties. Need I remind you that there were just a few congressmen/women who did their jobs, like the Dem DeFazio and Dr.Paul.
Those who voted for the patriot act (patriot my a$$)... They should all be put on boats and shipped to cuba. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html You do realize its because the republicans and democrats are now the same party right? There is a committee in place to make sure of that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html My only disagreement here is that it isn't just Reps lying through their eye teeth, both sides of the aisle are infiltrated with these globalists and for them, the ends justify the means. Isn't it interesting that JP morgan seems to making out like a bandit? First Bear stearns, now WA-MU? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html My only disagreement here is that it isn't just Reps lying through their eye teeth, both sides of the aisle are infiltrated with these globalists and for them, the ends justify the means. Isn't it interesting that JP morgan seems to making out like a bandit? First Bear stearns, now WA-MU? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html My only disagreement here is that it isn't just Reps lying through their eye teeth, both sides of the aisle are infiltrated with these globalists and for them, the ends justify the means. Isn't it interesting that JP morgan seems to making out like a bandit? First Bear stearns, now WA-MU? 
I totally agree, we've got this standing policy of Subsidize those that do our bidding and bomb those who choose not to. Look at all the tyrants we've propped up, that we've went in to topple after they've chosen to do their own things. We prop up a nuclear pakistan under Musharref the military dictator, but when they finally use democracy, we are now sneaking our military in and attacking people. WTF is wrong with the power elite, are they just that inbred? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every politician who signed their name to the patriot act, violated their oath to the Constitution. That oath was their condition of employment. They are all guilty of treason against the republic, if you ask me. treason trial and shot for each and every one of them along with the terrorist act passed after ok city bombing under clinton as well g w and clinton both and their congressional counter parts should all be tried for treason |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every politician who signed their name to the patriot act, violated their oath to the Constitution. That oath was their condition of employment. They are all guilty of treason against the republic, if you ask me. treason trial and shot for each and every one of them along with the terrorist act passed after ok city bombing under clinton as well g w and clinton both and their congressional counter parts should all be tried for treason 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html McCain's lying ads are far worse than this is. I have to laugh at his daily because they are so far from the truth. He doesn't mention his "favor" of the current administration in any of the ads. I wonder why?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html McCain's lying ads are far worse than this is. I have to laugh at his daily because they are so far from the truth. He doesn't mention his "favor" of the current administration in any of the ads. I wonder why?
Maybe Obama just a better liar... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html McCain's lying ads are far worse than this is. I have to laugh at his daily because they are so far from the truth. He doesn't mention his "favor" of the current administration in any of the ads. I wonder why?
Maybe Obama is just a better liar... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html McCain's lying ads are far worse than this is. I have to laugh at his daily because they are so far from the truth. He doesn't mention his "favor" of the current administration in any of the ads. I wonder why?
Maybe Obama just a better liar... Obama's ads are more truthful to what he sees as the changes that need to be made. McCain's are slam ads with very little "vision of change" and that is his new stolen mantra. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barack Obama vs. Free Speech Jesse Walker | September 26, 2008, 11:06am Here's an ad the National Rifle Association is running in Pennsylvania:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0MO3bgvw0 The Obama campaign disputes the accuracy of the advertisement, which is fine. It has also threatened regulatory retaliation against outlets that show it, which isn't fine. Instead of, say, crafting a response ad, Obama's team had general counsel Robert F. Bauer send stations a letter (Go to the link provided below to find all the links to the evidence) arguing that "Failure to prevent the airing of 'false and misleading advertising may be 'probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility.'" And, more directly: "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement." As a political move, this is stupid. Not only does it cast the campaign as a bunch of speech-squelching bullies, but it makes the ad itself into a story and thus guarantees that more people will see it. (A trivial example: I wouldn't have stuck it in a blog post if it weren't for the controversy.) But of course there's much more on display here than poor political judgment. Together with similar efforts elsewhere, the incident says something about how a President Obama might approach media regulation. In an article in the November reason -- watch for it on newsstands! -- I point out that while Obama says he won't restore the Fairness Doctrine, he isn't opposed to other, more subtle ways the authorities can influence what is or isn't said on radio and TV. For those of us who are repelled by John McCain's lousy record on First Amendment issues, it's important to remember that his opponent might not prove to be any better. http://reason.com/blog/show/129055.html McCain's lying ads are far worse than this is. I have to laugh at his daily because they are so far from the truth. He doesn't mention his "favor" of the current administration in any of the ads. I wonder why?
Maybe Obama just a better liar... Obama's ads are more truthful to what he sees as the changes that need to be made. McCain's are slam ads with very little "vision of change" and that is his new stolen mantra.
For starters no oneshould be paying attention to ads. They are just sales approaches trying to sell you a product. Secondly anyone, who actually thinks about Obama's "change" policies sees that he offers none. This is either deliberate or he's just no that smart. I'm thinking more on the lines of it being deliberate. He makes things sound pretty, but he has not offered a single policy that will bring about the "change" that anyone thinks we need. Thus this makes his WHOLE campaign slogan a lie. They are both running on the same lies, Obama is better at making his sound more appealing... |
|
|
|
|
