Obama Seeks to Block Ad

[carpro]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1

Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical

Aug 25 08:47 PM US/Eastern
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer 230 Comments


DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Great idea ... Use the DOJ to silence dissent. Very American.

What you you, Ken?

 

[Bible-boy]

Attempting such fierce opposition to what the other side is saying about you is a page right out of Marxist Saul Alinsky's playbook. BHO learned well while serving as a community organizer under Alinsky's model in Chicago.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If you were not a radical in one way or the other in the '60's then you either were not born yet, or too young to know, or totally unaware of what was going on.

Carpo, surely you were a radical as you still are.

 

[Bible-boy]

If you were not a radical in one way or the other in the '60's then you either were not born yet, or too young to know, or totally unaware of what was going on.

Carpo, surely you were a radical as you still are.

That is a false statement. If I can produce just one person who held to conservative values during the 60's it proves your statement false. Let's see would Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell fall into the radical category? I don't think so. How about Barry Goldwater, was he a radical or a conservative? How about the WWII generation (parents of the baby boomers)? Would all of them fall into the radical camp? I don't think so. I know my parents don't (and did not) fall into the radical camp.

 

[carpro]

If you were not a radical in one way or the other in the '60's then you either were not born yet, or too young to know, or totally unaware of what was going on.

Carpo, surely you were a radical as you still are.

In the sixties, I was only 2 places of note...

High school and Vietnam.

Which one of those makes me a "radical"?

Answer that one and then maybe you can get back on subject. Here's a hint. The subject is not me.

 

[carpro]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12816.html

Obama to DOJ: Block terrorist ad
By BEN SMITH



Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements.

________________________

What are they so afraid of?

 

[ajg1959]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12816.html

Obama to DOJ: Block terrorist ad
By BEN SMITH



Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements.

________________________

What are they so afraid of?

Does BHO really want the DOJ digging into the validity of the claims about his ties to Ayres? I say let them investigate, maybe we'll get some truth about BHO and his alledged ties to radicals, socialists and slum lord lawyers.

AJ

 

[SBCPreacher]

Sounds like someone hit a nerve!

 

[KenH]

What you you, Ken?

I haven't seen the ad so I don't know what the controversy is about it.

 

[carpro]

There is no controversy. It's the standard liberal ploy of stiffling free speech by threats and intimidation.


“The fact that [Obama] is launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight's speeches will,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

 

[KenH]

“The fact that [Obama] is launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight's speeches will,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

The fact that John Sidney McCain III is a warmonger tells us more about John Sidney McCain III than all of the blathering speeches at next week's GOP convention will.

 

[carpro]

Your hyperbole won't change the subject nor the facts.

It's not McCain who is using threats and intimidation tactics to stop ads critical of him.

Obama is taking a page out of the Kerry book. It didn't work then. It won't work now. The truth will out.

The louder he screams, the more people will want to know about his close relationship with a know terrorist.

 

[KenH]

Your denial of the facts won't change them, carpro. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

 

[carpro]

What facts are you referring to , my friend.

Is it not a fact that Obama has had a long association with a known unrepentant terrorist?

Is it not a fact that he is seeking to hide the extent of the relationship?

Is it not a fact that his organization is threatening lawsuits and legal action to stifle free speech?

Just which one of those facts, call them my facts if you wish, is not true.

Your constant attempts to shift the focus off Obama to McCain and then to me are puny attempts at misdirection.

Defend you candidate and what he stands for and what he is. Quit running away.

 

[Bible-boy]

The fact that John Sidney McCain III is a warmonger tells us more about John Sidney McCain III than all of the blathering speeches at next week's GOP convention will.

If you want to debate your claim that John McCain is a "warmonger" then please feel free to start another thread on that subject. However, please don't attempt to drive this thread off topic by introducing red herring material that is in no way related to the subject of the OP.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I haven't seen the ad so I don't know what the controversy is about it.

I don't know of any controversy. The question is about the propriety of using the justice department to stifle opposing views. Should Obama do that?

Isn't that what some are upset at Bush for? FOr using the DOJ for supposedly his own political gain? And now Obama is starting?

 

[KenH]

Defend you candidate and what he stands for and what he is. Quit running away.

You first.

 

[KenH]

However, please don't attempt to drive this thread off topic by introducing red herring material that is in no way related to the subject of the OP.

Yeah, I know. Please excuse me for introducing the truth about Senator McCain. I understand that his supporters can't handle the truth.

 

[carpro]

You first.

Who? McCain?

He's my candidate purely by default. Obama is so dangerous for the country that he is the only viable alternative at this point.

OK , I'll defend him.

Start a thread critical of him and I'll join in. But I warn you...

if all you've got is adultery and your warmonger mantra, it'll be a short defense.

Better come up with something concrete that matters.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. It's put up or shut up time for you:

What facts are you referring to , my friend.

Is it not a fact that Obama has had a long association with a known unrepentant terrorist?

Is it not a fact that he is seeking to hide the extent of the relationship?

Is it not a fact that his organization is threatening lawsuits and legal action to stifle free speech?

Just which one of those facts, call them my facts if you wish, is not true.

Wanna deal with what you started or run and hide again?