Obama Comes Out Against Free Speech

[jyhad]

Barack "The Silencer" Obama's Gangland Assault on Free Speech
By Michelle Malkin

http://www.vdare.com/

At least in action if not in word.

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by jyhad

By Michelle Malkin

.. and with that, the defence rests...



Al

[jyhad]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

.. and with that, the defence rests...



Al

You could try arguing against or providing commentary on the article?

[Largest of Als]

I could, but there's very little point in arguing politics, religion or conspiracy theories, especially on here, as people are so set in their opinions and you'll very rarely change their minds... so it's a waste of my time.



Al

[jyhad]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

I could, but there's very little point in arguing politics, religion or conspiracy theories, especially on here, as people are so set in their opinions and you'll very rarely change their minds... so it's a waste of my time.



Al

lol. Ive expected to change anyone's mind on anything. If my work was more interesting at the moment I wouldnt be posting

[MarkMono]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

I could, but there's very little point in arguing politics, religion or conspiracy theories, especially on here, as people are so set in their opinions and you'll very rarely change their minds... so it's a waste of my time.

The point is not to change peoples minds, its to introduce people to new information they may have been previously unaware of.

I don't expect to change anyones mind, but on the other hand I rarely bother reading links that even the people posting them have no opinion on.

[Hammer]

That article reads like the delusions of a paranoid woman who is scared of change.

[metallideth]

If I hear the word 'change' one more time in relation to this American election I think I'm going to bust Hinckley out the hospital and get him all the arms he needs.

"WE NEED CHANGE!"
"Wait, change from what?"
"CHANGE! PROGRESS!"
"What do you mean?"
"CHANGECHANGECHANGEPROGRESSPROGRESSPROGRESS!"

Go democracy, eh...

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by metallideth

If I hear the word 'change' one more time in relation to this American election I think I'm going to bust Hinckley out the hospital and get him all the arms he needs.

"WE NEED CHANGE!"
"Wait, change from what?"
"CHANGE! PROGRESS!"
"What do you mean?"
"CHANGECHANGECHANGEPROGRESSPROGRESSPROGRESS!"

Go democracy, eh...

Compare Obama's speeches to Blair's speeches in the 1997 election.

You probably won't be surprised because I suspect you'll have noticed the similarities already.

[jyhad]

Originally Posted by Hammer

That article reads like the delusions of a paranoid woman who is scared of change.

On what basis can you say she is paranoid? She is simply reporting that Obama is attempting to use the courts to stiffle legitimate and fair criticism

"On Monday, Obama demanded that the Justice Department stop TV stations from airing a documented, accurate independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial"

Rather than argue their right to free association or attempting to put Bill Ayers in his historical context (as they did with Rev. Right) they are demanding the advertisment not be run. Suggests authoritarian tendencies born of a personality cult does it not?

[MarkMono]

If I found out he ate babies he'd still look good against the competition.

As it is, while I'm not entirely without sympathy for the politics of Weather Underground, I can't see the point in playing up the fact that someone he knows was involved with them over a quarter of a century ago outside of a smear campaign. So encouraging his followers to complain about it just seems like the natural (and expected) response.

The article itself comes across as frenzied opinion-writing (i.e. "thuggish", "speech-squelching", "touchy-feely" before every mention of Barack or his followers.) not persuasive at all except to those who desperately wanted to agree with it in the first place. Barely the work of a coherent adult, let alone someone I'd trust to honestly report on the workings of a political campaign.

[jyhad]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

If I found out he ate babies he'd still look good against the competition.

Obama is such a poor candidate I almost feel sorry for the Democratic party and I do feel sorry for the traditional Democratic voting block that is stuck with this vacuos pretty boy.

Both Nader and McCain are far superior candidates. Obama is mildly less offensive than Barr though.

Originally Posted by MarkMono

As it is, while I'm not entirely without sympathy for the politics of Weather Underground, I can't see the point in playing up the fact that someone he knows was involved with them over a quarter of a century ago outside of a smear campaign. So encouraging his followers to complain about it just seems like the natural (and expected) response.

The WU was just another group of marxist murderers with no popular support. I believe a candidates friends and associates are a legitimate source of interest. If McCain had loads of buddies in the Aryan Nations you would want to know about it yes?

Originally Posted by MarkMono

The article itself comes across as frenzied opinion-writing, not persuasive at all except to those who desperately wanted to agree with it in the first place.

Does that not describe every political opinion piece ever written.

[MarkMono]

See, thats purely subjective opinion on the Weathermen, and it completely leaves aside the fact that Ayers has been a distinguished university professor for more than two decades. What, he's good enough to teach at university, but not good enough to even tangentially be associated with a potential president when the last leader they elected (See how I give Bush the benefit of the doubt in my rhetoric, thats how you take an equilateral view) had close personal ties with half the people they've since declared war on?

Aren't we kind of missing the point that it might be kind of, y'know, good if at least one of the potential next-president-of-the-US's associates has anti-imperialistic leanings?

Originally Posted by jyhad

Does that not describe every political opinion piece ever written.

Not even vaguely* which is why I both choose and investigate my sources carefully. One's like the article above are pretty much no-brainers though, a child could write more even-handedly. Frothing dogma.


*Though in fairness it does describe a few pieces of my favourite political writing. Nothing I take seriously, but entertaining reading all the same.

[Exit_W0unds]

Wtf is this pish?

[MarkMono]

I know it seems like total crap, but its worth reading just for the last paragraph, the author seems almost physically aroused by her condemnation of the effeminacy of the liberal left:

Originally Posted by Michelle Whatserface

While mainstream journalists schmoozed with liberal celebrities in Denver, practiced yoga with left-wing bloggers and received massages at the Google convention tent near touchy-feely Barackopolis, Team Obama was on an ugly, aggressive warpath sanctioned by Mr. Civility. While compassionate Obama prepared to stand before thousands of worshipers at Invesco Field, purporting to give voice to the voiceless, his Chicago-schooled campaign machine was working overtime to muzzle conservative critics. "We want it to stop," ordered one pro-Obama caller to WGN. Welcome to the future: the politics of Hope and Change enforced by the missionaries of Search and Destroy.