Obama tries to shut down Chicago radio station?

[SUBMAN1]

Man, if I were running against him, I'd just keep my mouth shut since his blunders are going to doom him. If the guy is using slander, a lawsuit would be more appropriate. I guess that would bring out too many secrets however.

All this is neat and everything, but what worries me is the squash or attempted squash of free speech. That is the part that irks me!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/08/28/obama-campaign-tries-shut-down-chicago-radio-show

-S

Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City's most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn't like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama's ties to local terrorist William Ayers....

[1480]

I posted this in your other BHO thread.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/cubby.jpg

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chitcago, Illinoise
Posts: 311
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/im_yahoo.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141436#)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon1.gif
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...nts_wgn_r.html (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)


Quote:

DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.

[Enigma]

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/attention-whore/1/Attention-Bell.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

I posted this in your other BHO thread.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/ranks/cubby.jpg

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chitcago, Illinoise
Posts: 311
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/im_yahoo.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141436#)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon1.gif
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...nts_wgn_r.html (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)


Quote:

DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.Ahh! Missed that one. Still crazy.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Typical Democrat.

[Platapus]

Subman1 You are just trying to stir up stuff.

Your thread title is misleading

1. It was not Senator Obama that took this action it was a local office of his campaign.

2. No one tried to shut down a radio station, the campaign office tried to solicit an E-mail/phone protest. Last time I checked, this was neither illegal or unprecedented.

How could anyone reading this article come up with the conclusion that Senator Obama tried to shut down a Chicago radio station?

Next time please don't use misrepresenting titles just to stir up emotions.

Don't attribute an action to Senator Obama unless Senator Obama did it. Don't you think it is dishonest to claim otherwise?

Don't exaggerate what happened. There is a big difference between protesting a radio segment and trying to close down a radio station.

If you want to post your political statements, just post them without the "National Enquirer" type headlines. Please? :yep:

[Enigma]

You would really think Subman worked for the Republicans, wouldn't you? This is far from the first time he has engaged in slander and out right falsehoods to try to smear a candidate he disagrees with. Such is life in the world of internet/message board political hackery. Hehe. It's all quite funny, really.....

As my little image above suggests, the boy is incredibly starved of attention....

[FIREWALL]

Subman1 You are just trying to stir up stuff.

Your thread title is misleading

1. It was not Senator Obama that took this action it was a local office of his campaign.

2. No one tried to shut down a radio station, the campaign office tried to solicit an E-mail/phone protest. Last time I checked, this was neither illegal or unprecedented.

How could anyone reading this article come up with the conclusion that Senator Obama tried to shut down a Chicago radio station?

Next time please don't use misrepresenting titles just to stir up emotions.

Don't attribute an action to Senator Obama unless Senator Obama did it. Don't you think it is dishonest to claim otherwise?

Don't exaggerate what happened. There is a big difference between protesting a radio segment and trying to close down a radio station.

If you want to post your political statements, just post them without the "National Enquirer" type headlines. Please? :yep:

WHO THE FECK ARE YOU TO GIVE ORDERS !!!:nope: :down:

[Enigma]

....orders? Where are the orders?:o

[STEED]

Subman1 You are just trying to stir up stuff.

Your thread title is misleading

1. It was not Senator Obama that took this action it was a local office of his campaign.

2. No one tried to shut down a radio station, the campaign office tried to solicit an E-mail/phone protest. Last time I checked, this was neither illegal or unprecedented.

How could anyone reading this article come up with the conclusion that Senator Obama tried to shut down a Chicago radio station?

Next time please don't use misrepresenting titles just to stir up emotions.

Don't attribute an action to Senator Obama unless Senator Obama did it. Don't you think it is dishonest to claim otherwise?

Don't exaggerate what happened. There is a big difference between protesting a radio segment and trying to close down a radio station.

If you want to post your political statements, just post them without the "National Enquirer" type headlines. Please? :yep:

WHO THE FECK ARE YOU TO GIVE ORDERS !!!:nope: :down:

http://www.leninimports.com/adolf_hitler_biography_2.jpg

[Fish]

Subman1

Your thread title is misleading



I am stunned.;)

[1480]

Platapus, while I agree with you on the misleading title, I do have an issue of something you wrote.

1. It was not Senator Obama that took this action it was a local office of his campaign.


You are a researcher, but I'll help you out:

"A local office", is 233 N. Michigan Ave. Obama's official 2008 presidential campaign HQ. Which is not the same as an office in say, Cleveland OH.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/330364,CST-NWS-sweet06.article


Since you are defending his "inaction" does this mean one, can ignore the man's literature, because he did not actually print it?

[Monica Lewinsky]

Subman1 You are just trying to stir up stuff.

Not really. Those of us that reside in the State of Illinois would have no problem with a clean head shot and not another repeat of Dealy Plaza from the sixth floor.

Just get rid of the new messiah that claims to have all the answers to everything and only has 143 DAYS of experience before announcing:

"I am the answer to all your problems and want a country to run and cannot prove I was born here to qualify for the job".

http://learnabit.homeserver.com/lab/obama-dig.jpg

[bookworm_020]

After seeing what the race for president does to the citizens of America, I'm now quite happy to have the queen as head of Australia. All the problems and costs of the royal family are the UK's problem.

Can everyone please stay civil in these political debates, it's only going to get even more messy as we get closer to the vote in november, and we don't want to wear out our modderators, do we?:yep:

[Zero Niner]

stay civil in these political debates
Civil? Political debates? That's an oxymoron :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[JoeCorrado]

Still the same old "stuff" from McCain headquarters.

:down:
___________________


Barack Obama, is the change that we need. He is the change we WILL have.

:up:

[joegrundman]

I want to ask a question

the internet age has brought the partisan bitterness and vehemence of American politics to us all, and well, it's a bit surprising.

We are also told that there is a Kulturkampf that's been going on in the US the last 30 years or so, and has been particularly intense the last 15.

So my question is:

do you think that political debate is more bitter etc. than usual in these recent times, or was it ever this way in US politics?

[Sailor Steve]

Whenever anyone talks about the bitterness of recent politics, I always go back to the second real election for US President: the campaign of 1800. I say second because the first two 'elections', in 1788 and 1792, were pretty much non-elections. Everyone knew that George Washington was going to be the first president, and everyone wanted it that way. According to the Constitution all electors cast two votes. They couldn't vote twice for the same candidate and the second vote couldn't be for someone from their own state. Every single elector cast one vote for Washington, then carefully cast votes for different people so Washington wouldn't be challenged. John Adams came in a distant second and became the first vice-president.

When Washington stepped down after two terms the first real election took place in 1796. The Federalist party put up John Adams, mainly because their leader, Alexander Hamilton, was pretty much unelectable. The Republicans put up Thomas Jefferson, who had been Washington's first Secretary of State. Each side had other candidates as well, hoping that both of 'their' guys would be elected and they would control the whole thing, but as it turned out Adams won and became the new president, and Jefferson came in second and became vice-president.

Adams and Jefferson had been friends and collaborators on the Declaration of Independence and had both been overseas when the Constitution was written; Adams as ambassador to England and Jefferson as ambassador to France. Unfortunately Hamilton kept working in the background to push his extreme views, which included war with France. During Adams's term America did become embroiled in what was called the 'Quasi-War', with several small naval battles, and the Federalists tried to push Adams into a declared war; but he would have none of it. When he sent three negotiators to France they were met with agents of Foreign Minister Talleyrand. These men were referred to by code letters and instigated what became known as the 'XYZ Affair'. They demanded money from the American agents, and when it got back to the US this resulted in the famous cry "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!" Adams managed to defuse the whole thing and end the conflict, but this turned Hamilton against him.

In an effort to end opposition from the Republicans, congress passed what were known as the 'Alien and Sedition Acts', which gave 1) congress the power to expel foreigners (mainly French) in time of war, 2) the president the power to expel any foreigners who spoke openly against the US, even in time of peace, and 3) made it illegal for anyone to speak out against the government. Jefferson worked behind the scenes to get then removed, and the 'Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions' were passed, opposing the new laws. Jefferson even discussed privately the possibility of secession and war, but his old friend James Madison talked him out of it. Jefferson also pushed several test cases by having friendly newspaper publishers speak out against the president, and some of them did indeed land in jail.

All this led to the next election, with Adams and Jefferson once again opposing each other. This time around Hamilton did everything he could to derail both candidates, and it became arguably the bitterest campaign in US history. Republican newspapers described Adams as "weak" and "ineffectual", and accused him of trying to start war with France; when in fact he had done just the opposite. Federalist newspapers said things like "The choice is between God, and a religious president - or Jefferson, and NO GOD!", and "If Jefferson is elected, murder, robbery, rape and incest will be openly taught and practiced!"

Hamilton's antagonism destroyed Adams, and Jefferson won handily. But it didn't end there, because Jefferson and the Republicans' second candidate, Aaron Burr, each got 73 electoral votes, and it came to the House of Representatives to make the final decision. Reasonably Burr should have said that he was only the vice-presidential candidate and that would have been the end of it, but Burr said nothing. Hamilton tried to get his Federalist cohorts in the House to go with Jefferson, but none of them wanted to vote for a true Republican, and Burr would be likely to side with them if elected. It took thirty-six ballots over three days to finally confirm Thomas Jefferson as the third president. While this was going on the Federalists tried to put together a secret committee that would have the power to decide if certain votes were even valid, the purpose being to get rid of both candidtates and put in their own man. Virginia and Pennsylvania both hinted that there might be civil war if anyone but Jefferson or Burr became president.

Burr's reputation among the Republicans was ruined, and he was never again a viable candidate for any office, which ultimately led to the duel in which he shot and killed Hamilton. Jefferson and Adams became bitter enemies for the next fifteen years, until a mutual friend, Doctor William Rush, got them writing to each other again. Abigail Adams never forgave Jefferson for his refusal to support her husband.

This also led to the passage of the 12th Amendment, which changed the rules so electors would now cast one vote for President and one for Vice-President. With Jefferson's backing it was ratified just in time for the 1804 election.

So no, heavy handed and bitterly antagonistic politicking is nothing new in America. You might almost say it's our true national passtime.

[joegrundman]

Thanks SS, that was interesting:up:

So you have established that it is not new, but has it been constant?

[Takeda Shingen]

I want to ask a question

the internet age has brought the partisan bitterness and vehemence of American politics to us all, and well, it's a bit surprising.

We are also told that there is a Kulturkampf that's been going on in the US the last 30 years or so, and has been particularly intense the last 15.

So my question is:

do you think that political debate is more bitter etc. than usual in these recent times, or was it ever this way in US politics?

It is the advent of the internet that has created this trend. However, it is not simply limited to political discourse. The internet has given the populace a new forum in which to spew vitriol in volumes not seen before. The anonymous nature of web interaction enables the individual to say things and act in ways that would never be acceptable in a real social setting. Interestingly enough, the instant access to news and information, much of it spun to a political agenda or posted by unreliable sources (FOX News, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia, et al) has created a subculture of self-proclaimed experts who will fight to the virtual death to prove themselves correct against all other self-proclaimed experts, using any tactic, slanderous or not, that they feel is advantageous to their supposed cause. Of course, the advocates of the opposing view are just as committed to their side; and so the great gladiator match continues with buckets of vitual blood spilled for no gain on either side, regardless of whether the discussion centers on elections, brands of shoes, or Star Trek captains. You can see it here every day. Still, I would concede that nothing gets the hornet's nest more stirred than the political.

November cannot come fast enough.

[SimNut]

It is the advent of the internet that has created this trend. However, it is not simply limited to political discourse. The internet has given the populace a new forum in which to spew vitriol in volumes not seen before. The anonymous nature of web interaction enables the individual to say things and act in ways that would never be acceptable in a real social setting. Interestingly enough, the instant access to news and information, much of it spun to a political agenda or posted by unreliable sources (FOX News, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Wikipedia, et al) has created a subculture of self-proclaimed experts who will fight to the virtual death to prove themselves correct against all other self-proclaimed experts, using any tactic, slanderous or not, that they feel is advantageous to their supposed cause. Of course, the advocates of the opposing view are just as committed to their side; and so the great gladiator match continues with buckets of vitual blood spilled for no gain on either side, regardless of whether the discussion centers on elections, brands of shoes, or Star Trek captains. You can see it here every day. Still, I would concede that nothing gets the hornet's nest more stirred than the political.

November cannot come fast enough.

Very well said. Anonymity on the Internet is breeding a new generation of rude people who hide behind keyboards saying and doing things no normal person would ever do in real life.

[SUBMAN1]

Very well said. Anonymity on the Internet is breeding a new generation of rude people who hide behind keyboards saying and doing things no normal person would ever do in real life.I'm not so sure about that man. I think the number of rude people in real life is greatly increasing at an exponential rate too.

-S

[SimNut]

Very well said. Anonymity on the Internet is breeding a new generation of rude people who hide behind keyboards saying and doing things no normal person would ever do in real life.I'm not so sure about that man?. I think the number of rude people in real life is greatly increasing at an exponential rate too.

-S

Exactly. People are starting to act like they do on the Internet in real life.

[Digital_Trucker]

Very well said. Anonymity on the Internet is breeding a new generation of rude people who hide behind keyboards saying and doing things no normal person would ever do in real life.I'm not so sure about that man?. I think the number of rude people in real life is greatly increasing at an exponential rate too.

-S
Exactly. People are starting to act like they do on the Internet in real life.

What, exactly is this "real life" I keep hearing about?:hmm:Sounds like an interesting concept:D

[SUBMAN1]

What, exactly is this "real life" I keep hearing about?:hmm:Sounds like an interesting concept:DA figment of ones imagination! :D

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Subman1 You are just trying to stir up stuff.

Not really. Those of us that reside in the State of Illinois would have no problem with a clean head shot and not another repeat of Dealy Plaza from the sixth floor.

Just get rid of the new messiah that claims to have all the answers to everything and only has 143 DAYS of experience before announcing:

"I am the answer to all your problems and want a country to run and cannot prove I was born here to qualify for the job".



Brother, advocating the assassination of a politcal leader will get you time in the brig: 2 weeks. A repeat will be for life, don't do it. :nope:

[Enigma]

*applause*

[Sailor Steve]

Thanks SS, that was interesting:up:

So you have established that it is not new, but has it been constant?
I would say so, up to a point. Politics in the 20th Century was actually fairly benign, but I may be missing some things; I actually don't study current or recent affairs too much.

I do laugh every time someone goes on about Bush and "lost the popular vote!" In 1824 John Quincy Adams, son of the second president, and war-hero Andrew Jackson ran against each other. Jackson won, but the majority was not a plurality (66% or 2-to-1) so it once again had to be decided in the house. Adams did some clever campaigning among friends in congress, and, in spite of losing both the popular and electoral votes, became the sixth president. Four years later Jackson beat him down hard.

[Platapus]

Brother, advocating the assassination of a politcal leader will get you time in the brig: 2 weeks. A repeat will be for life, don't do it. :nope:


Well done.

We can bitch and whine all we like about the various candidates. Threatening violence against an elected official (or one running for election) is unacceptable.

I don't even think it is funny to joke about it.

[Puster Bill]

Thanks SS, that was interesting:up:

So you have established that it is not new, but has it been constant?

Pretty much, yeah. Sometimes it makes the news, sometimes it doesn't, but it's always there.

Do you not remember the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan was either a senile, doddering old fool who couldn't stay awake, or an evil warmonger who was sure to end all life on Earth by starting a nuclear war?

[Puster Bill]

Brother, advocating the assassination of a politcal leader will get you time in the brig: 2 weeks. A repeat will be for life, don't do it. :nope:

Well done.

We can bitch and whine all we like about the various candidates. Threatening violence against an elected official (or one running for election) is unacceptable.

I don't even think it is funny to joke about it.

Seconded.

Voting from the rooftops is a piss-poor way to effect change in politics, and is not acceptable except in the most *DIRE* of circumstances.

[Stealth Hunter]

Brother, advocating the assassination of a politcal leader will get you time in the brig: 2 weeks. A repeat will be for life, don't do it. :nope:

Well done.

We can bitch and whine all we like about the various candidates. Threatening violence against an elected official (or one running for election) is unacceptable.

I don't even think it is funny to joke about it.

Seconded.

Voting from the rooftops is a piss-poor way to effect change in politics, and is not acceptable except in the most *DIRE* of circumstances.

A bit harsh IMO. I mean, the whole "sixth floor of the building" thing was distasteful (JKF's death was in no way funny...), but plenty of members on here think foreign politicians should be killed and get away with it...

And nice read Steve.

[August]

Do you not remember the 1980's, when Ronald Reagan was either a senile, doddering old fool who couldn't stay awake, or an evil warmonger who was sure to end all life on Earth by starting a nuclear war?
Or how about Abe Lincoln who, according to Harpers magazine was:

"Filthy story teller, despot, liar, theif, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, swindler, tyrant, field-butcher, land-pirate.."

or George B McLellan who said Lincoln was:

"Nothing more than a well meaning baboon."

And that he was a:

"An offensive exhibition of boorishness and vuglarity"


But thankfully Old Abe was no slouch at returning their fire:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."


Or being self effacing:


"The Lord himself prefers common looking people. That is why he makes so many of them."

[geetrue]

Or how about Abe Lincoln who, according to Harpers magazine was:

"Filthy story teller, despot, liar, theif, braggart, buffoon, usurper, monster, ignoramus Abe, old scoundrel, perjurer, swindler, tyrant, field-butcher, land-pirate.."

or George B McLellan who said Lincoln was:

"Nothing more than a well meaning baboon."

And that he was a:

"An offensive exhibition of boorishness and vuglarity"


But thankfully Old Abe was no slouch at returning their fire:

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."


Or being self effacing:


"The Lord himself prefers common looking people. That is why he makes so many of them."


Is this another bash Abraham Lincoln thread? :lol:

You left off the fact that good ole Abe was the first President to lose a child while in office. Then either he or his wife had a soothsayer come and try to talk to his dead son in the spirit world right there in the white house no less.

You don't talk to dead people without making God mad ... :o

[Enigma]

You don't talk to dead people without making God mad

I think it's quite impossible to do either...:lol:

[antikristuseke]

You can talk to a dead person all you like, but I wouldnt count on a reply.:smug:

[JHuschke]

Not only does Obama not like anything, he even changed NRA (National Rifle Association) rules.

The 1st one is no right to home defense. This is total bull§h!T

[XabbaRus]

"
Burr's reputation among the Republicans was ruined, and he was never again a viable candidate for any office, which ultimately led to the duel in which he shot and killed Hamilton."

I like this bit. Just imagine British politics over the last ten years if rivalries were sorted out like this. We'd have no politicians left...

[Takeda Shingen]

A bit harsh IMO. I mean, the whole "sixth floor of the building" thing was distasteful (JKF's death was in no way funny...), but plenty of members on here think foreign politicians should be killed and get away with it...

Any respectable forum cannot allow for that kind of nonsense. Neal and the moderating team are very efficient when it comes to keeping this type of comment under wraps, whether it be native or foreign politicians. Thinking it is one thing, but Neal makes sure that they don't say it. Monica Lewinsky got what he deserved.

[Platapus]

Not only does Obama not like anything, he even changed NRA (National Rifle Association) rules.


Do you have a citation for this?

I was not aware that Senator Obama had anything to do with the NRA rules.

[JHuschke]

Yes, a friend of mine showed me a NRA card with Obama's name on it. He says these are the 'right' rules to be followed. And it showed a list of 1-10 rules that should be followed.

[msb80sc]

Yes, a friend of mine showed me a NRA card with Obama's name on it. He says these are the 'right' rules to be followed. And it showed a list of 1-10 rules that should be followed.

Almost sounds like something you would buy at Spencer's Gifts. :D