McCain has one positive.

 

He's not Obama.

 

That's the only one he needs.

 

As I've said before, this is the first presidential election I can remember (and I'm old) that I am really scared of the outcome.

 

Obama and his socialistic policies along with a lapdog congress (thanks Yarmuth, changed one of your few good votes because Obama asked you to) could be disasterous for this country.

 

As much as I would love to see him and his leftist principles fail I don't want to see the damage that it could do to the country.

What's the news here? Slander is a criminal offense.

 

Actually in many states slander is not a criminal offense. I think only about 20 states have laws on the books making slander a criminal offense and I'm told they are rarely used to prosecute someone. Most slander is handed by civil suits. The media and other First Amendment supporters are extremely opposed to statutes making slander a crime, for what should be obvious reasons.

This is a legitimate thread topic. The Washington Times is reporting that public officials in St. Louis are threatening criminal prosecutions against any citizen who publishes or repeats negative remarks against a controversial candidate for President of the United States.

 

In addition to the mere censorship of opinion and free speech, there are also the collateral questions such as, why are public officials in St. Louis getting involved in the Presidential election? Why have they supported one candidate? Has anyone from the Obama campaign discussed this with them?

 

While slander is not a crime in most states (and due to First Amendment restrictions isn't prosecuted in the ones where it supposedly is), voter intimidation and fraud IS a crime, and that is what you all should be concerned about here. Some of you laugh off ACORN and things like this like it is just "politics as usual," but its not funny to me and I will yell as loudly as I can to anyone who will listen, when I want and how I want (within BGP rules, of course) that I think its important and that you should take notice.

 

While I disagreed with the import of the remarks about the "Palin Troopergate" thread, I respected the absolute right in there, for those of you who considered it important, to howl loudly that you felt it was abuse of office and power.

 

You are free to disagree that this kind of stuff, along with connections to Ayers and Rezko, etc., that the threads about Obama are trivial. But the number of threads that are started does not make them untrue, and it frankly gets old listen to many of you whine and complain about how you're tired of this election and this board, etc. etc. You are free to leave at any time with my sympathies, but I'm not going to back down on making known information that I think has legitimate implications for this country, and to do so in a manner that is forceful, though within this site's rules.

 

The bottom line is that I, and many others both on this board and off, believe that Barack Obama is a crook, and that he says he will do one thing while running for election and then intends to do completely different things when he gets elected. We believe the past evidence supports this. We believe that the connections to ACORN, Ayers, Rezko, and the others are more than just political smoke. We believe that he does, indeed, embrace Black Liberation Theology, whether he tells you he doesn't or not. We believe he embraces European social and economic policies that have eroded those countries and will erode ours.

 

Most of us also don't believe that John McCain is a very good candidate from our more conservative viewpoint, and that the country probably will be littered with some policies that we don't like very much even were he to win office. So we don't talk about him very much because there's not much good to talk about. Many of us, because of that, may not vote at all, or will vote for another candidate that may in fact effectively be a vote for Obama. But we sure as heck aren't voting for Obama, and right up until Election Day we are going to be howling loudly that he is a crook and at least attempting to link to the evidence, whether you want to see it or not.

 

I don't think Barack Obama is a Muslim, don't think he was born in Kenya, don't think his middle name being "Hussein" amounts to a hill of beans, don't care if he's black. I do think he has ties to terrorists and former terrorists. I do think he supports certain Arab and African leaders whose thinking is not in line with what I consider to be sound American judgment. I don't think labeling what he has said as "socialism," "Marxism," "communism," or any other "ism" is as much effective as I believe his economic policies to be lunacy. So I'm going to tell you about it.

 

I am one angry white boy. And I give myself credit for being a pretty smart guy. A lot of other pretty smart people feel the same way I do, and we're not rednecks, or white trash, or rural ignorants, or whatever other labels have been tossed our direction. We don't like Barack Obama and don't think you should, either, and don't want you to vote for him.

 

So hard to understand?

 

If we lose, then we lose, and so long as the loss was not purchased by ACORN, or anyone else, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am pretty sure, though, that I will still be on here, railing against what I consider to be unsound policy or politics, regardless of who gets into office, and crediting sound policy and politics where merited.

:thumb: You make an eloquent case, counselor.

I am one angry white boy. And I give myself credit for being a pretty smart guy. A lot of other pretty smart people feel the same way I do, and we're not rednecks, or white trash, or rural ignorants, or whatever other labels have been tossed our direction. We don't like Barack Obama and don't think you should, either, and don't want you to vote for him.

 

So hard to understand?

 

 

And some of us pretty smart guys think that Barak Obama is exactly what this country needs at this point in its history. I don't think that not liking Barak Obama makes you a redneck, white trash or a rural ignorant. I also don't think that supporting Senator Obama makes you a worshiping follower, a socialist, a Marxist or any of the other labels that have been tossed about (not by you to my recollection). What I believe is that we have two loyal and patriotic Americans running for President. They have different policy views. Why does one of them have to be made out to be some sort of evil incarnate as a justification for supporting the other?

 

Is that so hard to understand?

Obama is the shadiest politician that's come along in my lifetime, I still can't believe we have people that defend his every move.

 

You must be very young............under 8 years old is much too young to be posting on here.:lol:

^ Just within the last WEEK, on little old BGP's P&R forum, we have:

 

 

"Does this not bother you if you are voting for Obama", presented by EKUAlum05

 

"Palin attacks Obama on Pallin' (sorry, couldn't resist) around with terrorists, presented by Run to State

 

"Obama belonged to the Democratic Socialist Party in the 90s", presented by JD if You Please

 

"How did Obama pay for his Harvard/Columbia Education", presented by JD if you Please

 

"Did Obama help Odinga in his bid for President of Kenya", presented by HHS Dad

 

"Here's a little piece to fan the flames", presented by Run to State

 

"Investors real fear: a Socialist tsunami", presented by Hoot Gibson

 

"Obama fundraiser convicted of fraud spills beans", presented by Hoot Gobson

 

"Obama tried to sway Iraquis on deal", presented by Jumper_Dad

 

"Obama's magic", presented by Run to State

 

"The Obama test", presented by Run to State

 

"Tony Rezco cutting a deal and Obama's money from abroad and Odinga connection", presented by JD if You Please

 

"Obama has 24 hours to produce birth certificate", presented by JD if You Please

 

"The Lexington Herald Obama", presented by Wireman

 

"One Question for Obama", presented by Da Champ

 

"Obama born in Kenya, his grandmother says yes". presented by JD if You Please

 

...and this thread we're in now.

 

 

What's the common theme? You guessed it - nothing positive about Senator McCain. I guess that happens a lot - if the candidate you support has little to offer, one must resort to going negative.

 

:thumb:We have a winner!

We are barreling toward a thugocracy complete with Obama truth squads. Anybody who sees no problem with a political candidate who could be appointing judges and an Attorney General in a few months attempting to preemptively silence critics is simply not thinking clearly.

 

Chicago politics need to be restricted to Chicago. The cancer is spreading.

That is an absurd point. The action to challenge false accusations is a right that we have as Americans. There is no thugocracy about forcing these liars and muckrakers to be held to the law. I see it on this website all the time with certain posters near religiously propagating known lies and deceptions in an effort to artificially create doubt, concern, and fear.

 

I wish you people would simply stand behind your ideas and not play the game of character assassination. Early on BGP (prior to the 2004 election) before the spin doctors began using the internet to spew right wing and left wing dribble it was enlightening to discuss politics on this board. Today it is nothing but pundit produced prepackaged policy points and mostly slander at that. It is unfortunate what it has become because many no longer care to bother with discussing real issues because everything becomes a slanderfest.

And some of us pretty smart guys think that Barak Obama is exactly what this country needs at this point in its history. I don't think that not liking Barak Obama makes you a redneck, white trash or a rural ignorant. I also don't think that supporting Senator Obama makes you a worshiping follower, a socialist, a Marxist or any of the other labels that have been tossed about (not by you to my recollection). What I believe is that we have two loyal and patriotic Americans running for President. They have different policy views. Why does one of them have to be made out to be some sort of evil incarnate as a justification for supporting the other?

 

Is that so hard to understand?

 

I make him out to be evil incarnate because I believe he is evil incarnate. Your words, not mine, and McCain is the lesser of the two evils. Stating that they have "two different policy views" is like stating that St. X and Trinity are "two playoff contenders" - accurate, but a tad lacking on overall forcefulness.

That is an absurd point. The action to challenge false accusations is a right that we have as Americans.

Assuming that the groups that Obama and his thugs have attempted to intimidate intended to lie (and I do not concede that allegation in any way), those individuals have a constitutional right to do so. Except in some very limited circumnstances, the First Amendment gives all Americans the right to free speech even if they want to criticize a sitting US Senator who is running for president. BHO and his thugs have no right to interfere with anybody's right to free speech - even they believe that speech not to be entirely truthful.

 

There is no thugocracy about forcing these liars and muckrakers to be held to the law.

Yes, there is something distinctly thuggish about Obama's attempt to muzzle his critics through intimidation - and especially when he enlists law enforcement officers and prosecutors to make threats before ads have even run. Prior restraint of free speech cannot be tolerated in a free society.

 

I see it on this website all the time with certain posters near religiously propagating known lies and deceptions in an effort to artificially create doubt, concern, and fear.

That is a pretty broad brush you are paint with there. Please cite with specificity which posters have posted which "known lies and deceptions" or retract your allegation.

 

I wish you people would simply stand behind your ideas and not play the game of character assassination. Early on BGP (prior to the 2004 election) before the spin doctors began using the internet to spew right wing and left wing dribble it was enlightening to discuss politics on this board. Today it is nothing but pundit produced prepackaged policy points and mostly slander at that. It is unfortunate what it has become because many no longer care to bother with discussing real issues because everything becomes a slanderfest.

Again, point out the untruths and back up your allegations with facts and please stop accusing unnamed BGP members of knowingly posting false information.

That is an absurd point. The action to challenge false accusations is a right that we have as Americans. There is no thugocracy about forcing these liars and muckrakers to be held to the law. I see it on this website all the time with certain posters near religiously propagating known lies and deceptions in an effort to artificially create doubt, concern, and fear.

 

I wish you people would simply stand behind your ideas and not play the game of character assassination. Early on BGP (prior to the 2004 election) before the spin doctors began using the internet to spew right wing and left wing dribble it was enlightening to discuss politics on this board. Today it is nothing but pundit produced prepackaged policy points and mostly slander at that. It is unfortunate what it has become because many no longer care to bother with discussing real issues because everything becomes a slanderfest.

 

 

Not to trivialize your post, but the bolded is the new Peter Piper Picked a Peck of Pickled Peppers! :eek:

 

 

Resume......

Edited October 15, 200817 yr by rockmom

This is a legitimate thread topic. The Washington Times is reporting that public officials in St. Louis are threatening criminal prosecutions against any citizen who publishes or repeats negative remarks against a controversial candidate for President of the United States.

 

In addition to the mere censorship of opinion and free speech, there are also the collateral questions such as, why are public officials in St. Louis getting involved in the Presidential election? Why have they supported one candidate? Has anyone from the Obama campaign discussed this with them?

 

While slander is not a crime in most states (and due to First Amendment restrictions isn't prosecuted in the ones where it supposedly is), voter intimidation and fraud IS a crime, and that is what you all should be concerned about here. Some of you laugh off ACORN and things like this like it is just "politics as usual," but its not funny to me and I will yell as loudly as I can to anyone who will listen, when I want and how I want (within BGP rules, of course) that I think its important and that you should take notice.

 

While I disagreed with the import of the remarks about the "Palin Troopergate" thread, I respected the absolute right in there, for those of you who considered it important, to howl loudly that you felt it was abuse of office and power.

 

You are free to disagree that this kind of stuff, along with connections to Ayers and Rezko, etc., that the threads about Obama are trivial. But the number of threads that are started does not make them untrue, and it frankly gets old listen to many of you whine and complain about how you're tired of this election and this board, etc. etc. You are free to leave at any time with my sympathies, but I'm not going to back down on making known information that I think has legitimate implications for this country, and to do so in a manner that is forceful, though within this site's rules.

 

The bottom line is that I, and many others both on this board and off, believe that Barack Obama is a crook, and that he says he will do one thing while running for election and then intends to do completely different things when he gets elected. We believe the past evidence supports this. We believe that the connections to ACORN, Ayers, Rezko, and the others are more than just political smoke. We believe that he does, indeed, embrace Black Liberation Theology, whether he tells you he doesn't or not. We believe he embraces European social and economic policies that have eroded those countries and will erode ours.

 

Most of us also don't believe that John McCain is a very good candidate from our more conservative viewpoint, and that the country probably will be littered with some policies that we don't like very much even were he to win office. So we don't talk about him very much because there's not much good to talk about. Many of us, because of that, may not vote at all, or will vote for another candidate that may in fact effectively be a vote for Obama. But we sure as heck aren't voting for Obama, and right up until Election Day we are going to be howling loudly that he is a crook and at least attempting to link to the evidence, whether you want to see it or not.

 

I don't think Barack Obama is a Muslim, don't think he was born in Kenya, don't think his middle name being "Hussein" amounts to a hill of beans, don't care if he's black. I do think he has ties to terrorists and former terrorists. I do think he supports certain Arab and African leaders whose thinking is not in line with what I consider to be sound American judgment. I don't think labeling what he has said as "socialism," "Marxism," "communism," or any other "ism" is as much effective as I believe his economic policies to be lunacy. So I'm going to tell you about it.

 

I am one angry white boy. And I give myself credit for being a pretty smart guy. A lot of other pretty smart people feel the same way I do, and we're not rednecks, or white trash, or rural ignorants, or whatever other labels have been tossed our direction. We don't like Barack Obama and don't think you should, either, and don't want you to vote for him.

 

So hard to understand?

 

If we lose, then we lose, and so long as the loss was not purchased by ACORN, or anyone else, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am pretty sure, though, that I will still be on here, railing against what I consider to be unsound policy or politics, regardless of who gets into office, and crediting sound policy and politics where merited.

 

Maybe the greatest post in the history of the forum.

Maybe the greatest post in the history of the forum.

 

With Rockmom's post #41 as a close second. :lol:

Assuming that the groups that Obama and his thugs have attempted to intimidate intended to lie (and I do not concede that allegation in any way), those individuals have a constitutional right to do so. Except in some very limited circumnstances, the First Amendment gives all Americans the right to free speech even if they want to criticize a sitting US Senator who is running for president. BHO and his thugs have no right to interfere with anybody's right to free speech - even they believe that speech not to be entirely truthful.

All rights require responsible use in order to maintain them and their integrity. Your right to speak for or agaisnt an idea or question authority is clearly, rightly, and constitutionally protected. To use that right for malfeasance, muckraking, and propogating lies is irresponsible use of that right, and to unjustifiably slander an individual is against the law.

 

Yes, there is something distinctly thuggish about Obama's attempt to muzzle his critics through intimidation - and especially when he enlists law enforcement officers and prosecutors to make threats before ads have even run. Prior restraint of free speech cannot be tolerated in a free society.

If someone began to post articles about McCain being a racist, in a direct attempt to to influence the election I highly doubt you would feel the same way way if McCain challenged those accusation by legal means, and that is all that is going on here. That you describe the use of the law "attempt to muzzle his critics through intimidation", doesn't show much respect for the rule of law. Are police using intimidation tactics when they put up road blocks or persistently patrol more dangerous streets? I don't consider it intimidation to for warn law breakers that they will be held accountable for there actions. And it isn't the "critics" that Obama means to muzzle, it is the liars, there is a big difference. You won't win a prosecution against a critic who claims Obama runs a socialist platform, you can win a prosecution against some deliberately forging documents and other items to make him look like Muslim or a member of a renegade group.

 

That is a pretty broad brush you are paint with there. Please cite with specificity which posters have posted which "known lies and deceptions" or retract your allegation.

 

Again, point out the untruths and back up your allegations with facts and please stop accusing unnamed BGP members of knowingly posting false information.

I don't want to make personal accusations as it doesn't produce quality discussion and probably violates rule #2. The evidence of the matter is on the BGP forum itself. mcpapa provides an example of just a few of the anti candidate threads that make the majority of this site. I don't say they are all lies, but the majority of them are twisted, manipulated and skewed truths LIKE THIS VERY THREAD. The title itself is quoted, it is a lie too state that Obama quoted that statement, and the author should be ashamed of themselves.

With Rockmom's post #41 as a close second. :lol:

 

 

Thanks! :lol: I figured it'd get lost in the fighting. It's nice to know someone read it. :lol: