TheAgitator.com
Obama Consults His Inner Petty Tyrant
Friday, September 26th, 2008You know, if you’re going to run as the antidote to the current administration’s abuse of power, silencing of political foes, and suppression of dissent, sending chill letters threatening to shut down TV stations that run ads critical of you isn’t exactly the way to show off your bona-fides.
McCain’s hardly a paragon of free speech. But Obama’s choice to threaten government censorship as his first resort–while still a candidate–doesn’t bode well for how he may treat his critics as president.
How Bush-esque. Change we can believe in OR ELSE.
I agree.
shorter obama: “new rule! criticizing me is hate speech!”
that’s one *seriously* insecure corrupt powermad little tyrant-in-waiting, there.
And how about those Truth Squads? Missouri government officials who support Obama are getting together to create “Truth Squads” to take criminal action against people who “spread lies” about Obama.
It’s not just Obama; it’s his damn supporters too. They’re starting to take a page right out of the Blackshirt playbook. I wonder when we’re going to actually start seeing them commit acts of violence against Obama’s critics.
With the lengths that Obama’s people have gone to in using technology in this campaign, I can’t imagine that they’re not familiar with the Streisand Effect. And after watching the ad that they were trying to suppress, one can’t help but wonder whether their intent was to make sure it was as widely viewed as possible.
I hate this election.
So Obama is using the law to call bullshit. What’s your point?
The point is this: it is about the attitude it displays, the lack of respect for critical opinions, a belief that the law should be used to quelch dissent.
The issue is not whether Obama violated the First Amendment (he didn’t) or whether he acted illegally in sending that letter (he didn’t).
I think none of us would have been worried or concerned were it not for the fact that Obama is probably going to be President in two months. What if the lawyers now are Federal agents then?
And then there’s this……..
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php
the “current administration’s . . . and suppression of dissent”?
this is a claim i’ve often wondered about. just how has Bush suppressed dissent?
i see nothing but dissent toward his policies, and absolutely VILE personal attacks against him, and his family. along with scurriously racial attacks against, for example, Condi Rice (funny how the left seems to accept “hate-speech” as long as it’s directed towards Republicans).
and, i see absoluty NO none of these people getting threatened as the Obama campaign is doing, much less being thrown into gulags.
this liking of Bush to a Hitler-like tyrant seems to be a bit over the top.
but i’m glad Radley pointed out that the “chosen one” seems to have some decidedly non-freedom-like instincts.
All candidates and politicans harbor secret dreams of using Gestapo tactics against those they feel threatened by. The only thing unusual about this is the slip-up of letting it show.
Let’s send him a link to this article and a free complimentary stick-on Hitler mustache so he can model it in front of the mirror when no one is looking.
so he has to pay for an ad denying that he’s a sheepfucker?
seriously, from Sullum’s Reason article defending the ad, bolding mine (and yes, I cherry-picked):
He adds that the Illinois senator voted to “ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition,” a reference to his 2005 vote for a federal ban on rifle ammunition “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability,” phrasing that arguably covered deer-hunting ammunition.
seriously, what “deer-hunting” ammo does this apply to? Any? Is that “virtually all”, or is “arguably” a weasel word?
Finally, the hunter complains that Obama wants to ban shotguns and rifles used for hunting, alluding to his support for reinstating the federal “assault weapon” ban. That law arbitrarily prohibited firearms based mainly on cosmetic features that made them look scary to gun-naïve politicians.
so which provisions of AWB are the hunters complaining about- the bayonet mount? the flash suppressor? I don’t agree with his murky position on this stuff but this seems to say that any gun regulation can be stretched to describe it as “banning shotguns and rifles used for hunting” and that he should either “deny he’s a sheepfucker” or do something similar to McCain to put him on the defensive.
Obama has a lot
more skeletons that he’d like to keep
hidden in the closet than his votes on gun-control legislation.
Bush set the example. If Republicans are pissed off at Obama’s tactics, then they need to realize that they sewed the seeds of this behavior.
Truth Squads…swift boaters…its all the same thing. Critisizing the administration used to just be unpatriotic. Critisism might become hate speech in the future as mentioned above. I have little to no doubt that Bush was the tip of the iceberg and we are in for even worse (as if the last eight years weren’t bad enough) government atrocities no matter who gets elected, McBama or O’Cain. The wheels were set in motion a long time ago.
#11 – He doesn’t have to pay for a “I am not a sheepfucker” ad. He could just call a press conference, or issue a release, and say, “I denounce this ad that calls me a sheepfucker.”
Yes, the ad is misleading, and it doesn’t seem fair that a politician should have to defend themselves against misleading ads. But if we start banning misleading ads how many would be able to air at all? Several ads this year (from both sides) have at least stretched the truth.
and my point is- where do you draw the line between “that’s an outright lie” and “stretching the truth”? How do you stop fraud in the free market of ideas without having everything grind down into a he said/she said because gee, there’s a sliver of a grain of truth in there? Do you not see that putting something that you know is not true out there in order to make your opponent deny it is poisoning the free exchange of ideas?
Of course NAMBLA members like you wouldn’t…..;)
“Just how has Bush suppressed dissent?”
“Free-speech” zones. “Presidential Advance Manual.” Screening attendees at town hall meetings. Rally squads. Handpicking reporters at press conferences. Advance raids by FBI on protesters at the RNC in St. Paul. Infiltration of said protesting groups by FBI informants. Arresting (ostensibly by local sheriff) of journalists at same convention. Issuance of subpoenas under the 1917 Espionage Act. Illegal warrantless wiretapping. Murder and imprisonment of journalists covering Iraq occupation. Plamegate. Crafting of false news for reportage in the American media, including the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch fictions.
These are just a few examples I found in 10 minutes of seaching Google for “Bush Administration suppresses dissent.” Only 145,000 hits on those terms. To be fair, I actually remembered quite a few from when they occurred, I just wanted to check my facts.
One may also include the general atmosphere of fear and polarization since the Bush Administration’s exploitation of 9/11 and every other crisis since then (think mushroom clouds), and the fascist media’s inclination to report every word from the administration as gospel truth, quoting administration news releases as fact, thus doing its dirty work and influencing public opinion.
I’ll reserve judgment as to your logical faculties, Scott, as it may just be that you have flawed perception.
Disclaimer for above: the whole f’en mess stinks to high heaven and I would not even acknowledge any politician who were lying on the road bleeding to death. I have no horse in this rotten mess. Obama can go fuck himself or sheep or whatever it is he prefers. Ditto for McCain, ditto for anyone who resorts to force for a living.
Because anyone who looks at his record on guns knows he’s a gun grabber, and he’s threatening people over this ad because someone called him out on his record.
The only bullshit here is Obama’s efforts to spin himself away from being a throw-back to 60s leftwing radicalism into a more moderate form. It’s as bad as McCain’s efforts to make himself look like a conservative on most issues.
Disclaimer for above: the whole f’en mess stinks to high heaven and I would not even acknowledge any politician who were lying on the road bleeding to death.
But then you’re just violating the “good Samaritan” laws!
Danno:
> Honeyko – my point was that usually these assholes (pols) are a
> little more careful in concealing their bullshit.
No they’re not, and the liberals are invariably the most incompetent at it (since they’re used to relying on the media to keep it well-hidden rather than having to do it themselves). McCain blowing off Letterman (who hasn’t been either funny or well-rated in at least ten years) with a “white lie” when he had time to tape only one of two scheduled shows is hardly comparable to the monumental chutzpah of recent Democratic nominees who assume they can wholesale rewrite their entire histories and get it fobbed off in the internet age. Kerry the “war hero”? Oh, brother….
Other Jeff:
> Most of the government’s moves regarding the financial crisis
> have happened during weekends.
It depends upon what you mean by “government” — Fed or Treasury decisions, or Presidential executive orders can certainly happen at any time. But since they brought Congress in on the deal, fuggetaboutit until Monday.
60s leftwing radicalism
this doesn’t jibe with the complaints of anti-gun stuff as the 60s leftwing radicals were all about arming themselves and “by any means necessary”. How do you reconcile the two and make that claim?
i can ‘kinda’ understand the deal about guns, but I would have started with the ‘muslim terrorist’ lies being spread around. I’ve recieved three e-mails this week purporting him to be a member of alqaida.
don’t terrorists need guns? at least people should be consistent on thier attacks.
the whole anti-gun thing is less important now after Heller. short of insanity, Obama would never do such a thing to jeapordize his incumbency.
#1 Wrong thread, Honeyko
#2 I wasn’t getting partisan in my criticism, just being general
Cynical in CA -
“Free-speech” zones. “Presidential Advance Manual.” Screening attendees at town hall meetings. Rally squads. Handpicking reporters at press conferences. Advance raids by FBI on protesters at the RNC in St. Paul. Infiltration of said protesting groups by FBI informants. Arresting (ostensibly by local sheriff) of journalists at same convention. Issuance of subpoenas under the 1917 Espionage Act. Illegal warrantless wiretapping. Murder and imprisonment of journalists covering Iraq occupation. Plamegate. Crafting of false news for reportage in the American media, including the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch fictions.”
Let’s just take one and see if it bears you out.
how about, hmmmm. ok, “plamegate”.
So, an employee of the state department, ummm, Richard Armitage, inadvertantly reveals that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. After a whole lot of sturm and drang a special prosecutor determines that there was no crime in that (most likely because Plame was not “under cover” among other things) and closes his investigation after convicting a totally innocent bystander (Libby).
End of story. Except that it was she and her husband who “lied” about everything surrounding “plamegate”.
So, if that “example” of Bush suppressing dissent is so easily disposed of, I’m dis-inclined to pay much attention to the rest of your rambling tirade, particularly more egregious ones like “Murder and imprisonment of journalists covering Iraq occupation” (for which I’m certain you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE).
You clearly suffer from BSD (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Mojotron3000,
Almost all rifle ammunition will penetrate the most commonly used body armor worn by police. A federal ban on ammo with armor piercing capability would effectively ban the rifle ammo used to hunt deer. The reason “arguably” was used by Reason is because rifle ammo specifically made to hunt deer would not be designed to have AP capability but it would probably penetrate armor and likely be subject to the ban.
It’s similar to the kindergarden sex ed ad in my opinion. They claim obama supported something. That something would have been an unintended effect of what he voted for being enacted. Deceptive but not wrong.
People need to stop defending Obama’s support of shitty legislation and his lies about it.
this doesn’t jibe with the complaints of anti-gun stuff as the 60s leftwing radicals were all about arming themselves and “by any means necessary”. How do you reconcile the two and make that claim?
A) The sixties leftwing radicals who supported the ownership of firearms by the proles were about evenly split: Half of them believing in principled defense of themselves and their rights, the other half believing in violent revolution and wholesale violation of the rights of anyone with more money and property.
B) By comparison, today’s liberals are a bunch of whining, juvenile vaginas, half of whom would prefer firearms to be solely in the hands of the “only ones”, the other half just wishing all those icky guns would vanish from the face of the planet.
j.d.,
“the whole anti-gun thing is less important now after Heller. short of insanity, Obama would never do such a thing to jeapordize his incumbency.”
No, its entirely relevant as it reveals the deep-seated dishonesty in Obama. Rather than admit that he held, and still holds his opinions about gun ownership, but then acknowledging that the SC has invalidated his views and promising then to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the SC despite his personal views, he’d rather attempt to LIE around the issue. Even when it is so clearly able to prove him a liar. It not only reveals him as a liar, it shows he is not very smart.
And Heller isn’t going to be the last word in gun-rights laws. The next president will surely appoint some new justices so Obama could affect future decisions. Also, with a Democratically controlled Congress Obama would likely get an “assault-weapons” ban which I suspect he would sign.
I’m an ardent gun-owner. That is my “hot-button”. Obama fails the test, badly.
“just how has Bush suppressed dissent?” = troll?
To be fair, suppression of dissent is not an entirely republican phenomenon (see the WTO protests in Seattle). That said, to ignore the administration’s harassment of protesters and alternative voices in the media is just plain dumb.
Mossberg:
voted to “ban virtually all deer-hunting ammunition,” a reference to his 2005 vote for a federal ban on rifle ammunition “designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability”
is deer-hunting ammo designed or marketed for that purpose? Is it possible that it could pierce armor? Yes, as can a lot of ammo. Is it designed or marketed for that purpose? Not that I’ve ever seen. Are there loopholes? Yes, just don’t market it as such and deny that’s what it was designed for, but that doesn’t mean that it would do anything like “ban(ning) virtually all deer-hunting ammunition” which is what was claimed.
I would be in favor of limiting free speech for campaign ads. If you are running, you can put out an ad. If you are just a group, even a political group, no TV ads for you. Do mailers or phone or email. We already censor content on TV so there is no Free Speech argument. If the FCC protects me from hearing the word “motherfucker” then protect me from misinformation as well? If a candidate wants to tell a big whopper on TV, great! At least then somebody can ask him about it directly instead of the “that didn’t come from my campaign officer.”
Let every ad come from a candidate and half the slime would go away.
There is no “deer hunting” ammo. However, there is ammo that that people use to hunt deer. That ammo is designed for penetration. To trust elected officials with the power to ban ammo based on their assumption of whether they think the AP rounds were designed to penetrate armor or just organic material is ridiculous.
But, that won’t matter because, according to you, they can just relabel and deny. So wonderful, Obama voted for a piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing and at most only forces manufacturers to lie and relabel their products. That is so much better.
Why defend this bullshit?
In order to violate the rights of others and accomplish violent revolution, not to protect themselves and their community from criminals and government encroachment (which they were actively agitating for).
I don’t see the problem with this at all.
You are arguing about free speech when we should be talking about slander. There is a distinct difference no? There is a fine line yes, but aren’t the stakes a bit high here? For you know, like the presidency. This is hardball.
The problem with this type of negative ad is the proven fact that it sway’s people more than than the refudiation of said negative ad. I see no problem trying to squash them. Wouldn’t you rather live in a world where people wouldn’t even think of resorting to this pathetic behavior?
In your perfect, unpoisoned free exchange world, who decides what’s true and what isn’t? Because clearly you think this add is false, but Mossberg thinks it’s true, and most of the readers here seem to agree with him.
It’s a gray area, not at all black and white like claiming membership in NAMBLA. That sort of stuff (Obama was born in Kenya, McCain killed dozens of sailors when he crashed a plane, assorted other known lies) is only spouted by the Internet crazies.
Tried to post my counter-rebuttal to Scott twice. Oh well, I’m not going to call censorship just yet, it is possible I violated some rule like too long of a post or too many embedded links.
Probably just a fart in the wind anyway. If the administrator of the site can contact me, that would be greatly appreciated.
> There is no “deer hunting” ammo. However, there is ammo
> that that people use to hunt deer.
Yeah, and an easy way to spot some brands is by the deer on the box’s advertising. — But oh, no: it’s not really deer-hunting ammo… [laff]
Honeyko,
I guess Wolf brand ammo is for hunting wolves and winchester ammo is for hunting cowboys, eh? Aside from some new federal rifle ammo, animals on boxes are only common with shotgun shells. Anyway, that ignores the point I was making.
Has Obama or his lawyers sent Balko a cease and desist letter for calling Obama a petty tyrant?
If so, I hope the letter is published. Let’s see how long this post remains published.
the ad is revolting. Those people are revolting. I’ve never been hunting a day in my life so what’s this nitwits point? Should we all enjoy killing animals as a hobby? And if we don’t, we have to be slammed by ugly rednecks, scary rednecks? There should be taxes on people and their weapons to pay for all the damage they do to innocent people and children. I’m all for it. It’s sickening if you ask me. Not everyone thinks the type of people in this ad are someone to look up to or even give a crap about. Rednecks, rednecks and more rednecks. They should be taxed just for being a f-ing redneck and making the rest of us puke.
[Original response edited by author, please excuse double-post if it occurs, will attempt to post response in multiple posts, again apologies to all]
Scott, I was disappointed to read what I consider your extremely weak response to my post. I begin by addressing the two logical fallacies in your last statement: “You clearly suffer from BSD (Bush Derangement Syndrome).”
I am a professed anarchist, you’ll encounter my arguments on the subject elsewhere here. As such, I am an equal opportunity “deranged” individual and am just as likely to rant against one politician as another, as evidenced by my disclaimer to my first post. So, your first error is in making a non-sequitur. Of course, your second error is the ad hominem.
“Let’s just take one and see if it bears you out.”
So allegedly disproving one argument disproves them all. How convenient. Another non sequitur.
[Part 2 of original post]
“So, an employee of the state department, ummm, Richard Armitage, inadvertantly reveals that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. After a whole lot of sturm and drang a special prosecutor determines that there was no crime in that (most likely because Plame was not “under cover” among other things) and closes his investigation after convicting a totally innocent bystander (Libby). End of story. Except that it was she and her husband who “lied” about everything surrounding “plamegate”.”
I suppose reasonable minds could disagree as to what happened in Plamegate. I am skeptical that the public ever knows the full truth. But since I am skeptical that you are reasonable, I do not count your participation as valid toward getting at truth. My understanding of Plamegate was that U.S. envoy Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to look for uranium, came back and said there was none, made that knowledge public, and as revenge, the Bush Administration conspired to reveal the identity of his undercover CIA operative spouse Valerie Plame. Now, as an anarchist, I have no stake in the outcome — the CIA is rotten to the core and evil, and I couldn’t care less if one of their henchmen was made vulnerable or useless. But as evidence of suppression of dissent, which is what I was attempting to prove, this incident sent a chilling message that the Bush Administration was not to be crossed or else. Anyone who would like to corroborate either my reading or Scott’s reading of the incident, please chime in.
[Part 3 of original post]
“So, if that “example” of Bush suppressing dissent is so easily disposed of …”
Not so easily disposed of after all, Scott — if you’re up to it, you can have a go at another one of the dozen or more examples I listed in just 10 minutes of searching.
“I’m dis-inclined to pay much attention to the rest of your rambling tirade …”
Of course you are — apparently it would be a tremendous effort for you to logically discern the truth — ad hominems are so much easier. Just so we’re clear, it is not my words that make it the truth, the truth exists independently of a human mind, which as you have demonstrated so amply has quite the capacity to deceive itself. And I do have to take issue with the “rambling tirade” insult, my opinion is that it was rather measured, dispassionate and thoughtful.
[Part 4 of original post, sorry but the software is very touchy]
” … particularly more egregious ones like “Murder and imprisonment of journalists covering Iraq occupation” (for which I’m certain you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE).”
Oh don’t be so certain, it’s boring. A bit of skepticism is quite healthy, Scott. You strike me as someone a step above believing whatever he is told, the facts be damned. Open your mind a little, it’s refreshing!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraqi+journalists+murdered+U.S. = 340,000 hits!
[Part 5, and last, of original post]
How about one little tidbit of happiness from just one of the articles, because, you know, addressing one example proves the lot according to Scott’s logic!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/murder-highlights-death-toll-of-iraqi-journalists-452637.html
“Jun 11, 2007 … Her killing brings to 106 the number of journalists, almost all Iraqi, murdered in the country since the US invasion in 2003 along with 39 …”
You know, Scott, you ought to read the foreign press every now and again for $#!+s and giggles. All Fox News and no play makes Scott a very dull boy.
Respondez s’il vous plait, dull boy.
The ad itself is accurate.
Cynical
“I am skeptical that the public ever knows the full truth. But since I am skeptical that you are reasonable, I do not count your participation as valid toward getting at truth.”
Thanks for letting me know there is no reason to engage you in discourse.
Well put, quitter.
Mojotron 3k: deer hunting ammunition is “designed” to be armor piercing, in that it is well known what it takes to accomplish that task, and that task happens to have congruent design criteria with that of hunting large animals. (Namely, a bullet with a high sectional density moving very quickly, which encompasses almost every centerfire rifle cartridge made.)
And, thank you to Pam for showing the face of reasoned enlightenment on the left.
Cynical -
I learned long ago not to wrestle with pigs. I only get dirty and the pig likes it.
You’re still wrestling. Go home now to your mama, boy.