Obama Campaign Uses Threats to End NRA Ads

I guess that no one realizes the political advertisements are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from the truth in advertising laws.
 
uscitizen said:
I guess that no one realizes the political advertisements are SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT from the truth in advertising laws.
Click to expand...
If so, what basis are they threatening broadcast stations for running inaccurate political ads?

AND if, so, is that a GOOD thing? I think not.
 
Good Luck said:
If so, what basis are they threatening broadcast stations for running inaccurate political ads?

AND if, so, is that a GOOD thing? I think not.
Click to expand...

Any private organization or individual can sue any other one, the law really has nothing much to do with it.
 
uscitizen said:
Any private organization or individual can sue any other one, the law really has nothing much to do with it.
Click to expand...
But suit is not what is being done. They (democratic AND republican organizations) are threatening the station's FCC license. That goes way beyond one private organization suing another.
 
Good Luck said:
But suit is not what is being done. They (democratic AND republican organizations) are threatening the station's FCC license. That goes way beyond one private organization suing another.
Click to expand...

Hey I can threaten you drivers liscence, but I have no authority to do anything about it now do I. Now if the letter came from the FCC or an official arm of our government you would have a leg to stand on. As it is all you have supporting your argument is ass.

GL I am going to suspend you drivers liscence for being too stupid to drive. Please mail it in immediately to your local DMV office.

thank you for your cooperation.
Have a nice day.
 
uscitizen said:
Hey I can threaten you drivers liscence, but I have no authority to do anything about it now do I. Now if the letter came from the FCC or an official arm of our government you would have a leg to stand on. As it is all you have supporting your argument is ass.

GL I am going to suspend you drivers liscence for being too stupid to drive. Please mail it in immediately to your local DMV office.

thank you for your cooperation.
Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Are you defending this practice, or just explaining why it is legal?
 
uscitizen said:
I am just explaining why it is not censorship and why it is legal. I in no way defend intimidation of others for exercising their right of legal speech.
Click to expand...
Well, once again I have not once called it censorship. I have said it is interfering with free speech, and it is, through use of intimidation. But I denied early in the thread it is censorship.

That being said, would you support the idea of applying the principles of truth in advertising to political ads regardless of their origin?

AND

What is your reaction to the story that Obama's campaign organizers prohibited signs and banners at their political rally at University of Mary Washington?
 
Good Luck said:
Well, once again I have not once called it censorship. I have said it is interfering with free speech, and it is, through use of intimidation. But I denied early in the thread it is censorship.

That being said, would you support the idea of applying the principles of truth in advertising to political ads regardless of their origin?

AND

What is your reaction to the story that Obama's campaign organizers prohibited signs and banners at their political rally at University of Mary Washington?
Click to expand...

I would love to see the truth in advertising law applied to political speeches, advertisenments, etc. Whether from the actual candidate for their party staff. Of from anyone producing and distributing an incorrect politically motivated message.

On the ohter issue I have not researched it. I cnnot make a judgement based on a soundbye alone.
 
Good Luck said:
Why not address the issue? Obama's campaign is using their political clout to threaten the FCC license of stations who run the NRA ads. That is dead fucking wrong and you know it. So what do you do? Attack the NRA. Does that mean you approve of censoring ads you don't like?

And NRA, for all their extremism when it comes to 2nd amendment rights, still does a lot of good work. NRA still runs campaigns to protect habitat and game animals, and campaigns that not only protecting hunter's rights, but hunters themselves through safety programs, both run by and advocated by NRA. NRA is also a significant advocate of firearms safety in the home, again both running and supporting firearms safety courses and programs.

But since they don't want the 2nd amendment gutted, they are the bad guys. While Obama's campaign (I do not know enough to say how much Obama is involved) is using totalitarian tactics, you're worried whether NRA has abandoned their original mission.
Click to expand...

First of all your basing you position on a false premis. That the NRA is not affiliated with any political organization when they are a defacto organ of the right wing of the Republican party (as well as a failed conservation group).

To say the ads are dishonest in the extreme is an understatement. They contain out right lies and border on libel as such anyone would be within their rights to threaten these political hacks.
 
Watermark said:
I will agree to allow lies on public TV the day you agree to allow porn GL.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with porn? America needs porn! Has anyone traveled around the world? If so you may have noticed how mean, frigid and fat American women are in comparison then you would understand just how important porn is to our society!

Besides, what's wrong with adults watching two happy people enjoying each other?

So let's not be making any more communistic un-American comments against porn!!!!
 
Good Luck said:
Right. So much for the "I only depsise republicans more than democrats" claim.

Whether Obama is involved or not is immaterial. At least that's what all you who deride McCain for who is on his campaign team seem to indicate. The fact remains Obama's campaign office is attempting to block political ads run by organizations who oppose Obama.

Want to be a blind partisan apologist for that king of un-American activity, fine. It only shows I have been right all along calling you a democratic partisan.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you just haven't been paying attention. Both sides have been doing this.
 
Mottleydude said:
What's wrong with porn? America needs porn! Has anyone traveled around the world? If so you may have noticed how mean, frigid and fat American women are in comparison then you would understand just how important porn is to our society!

Besides, what's wrong with adults watching two happy people enjoying each other?

So let's not be making any more communistic un-American comments against porn!!!!
Click to expand...

And people wonder why I have true contempt for men in general. I appreciate the exceptions like the finest of all wines...but in general, they are barely in the same species.

And Cypress' claim that it's right wing men only, or even mostly, which I know to be untrue, is further disproved in this thread.
 
Darla said:
And people wonder why I have true contempt for men in general. I appreciate the exceptions like the finest of all wines...but in general, they are barely in the same species.

And Cypress' claim that it's right wing men only, or even mostly, which I know to be untrue, is further disproved in this thread.
Click to expand...

Lighten up Darla....I was being facetious. :cof1:
 
Mottleydude said:
First of all your basing you position on a false premis. That the NRA is not affiliated with any political organization when they are a defacto organ of the right wing of the Republican party (as well as a failed conservation group).

To say the ads are dishonest in the extreme is an understatement. They contain out right lies and border on libel as such anyone would be within their rights to threaten these political hacks.
Click to expand...
You are the one with the false premise. Listening to too many anti-gun liars I guess.

NRA is NOT affiliated in any way with either political party. The fact that most republicans run on minimal gun control is why the NRA backs the republican party and most republican candidates. It is very simple - NRA as an organization is pro 2nd Amendment and anti gun-control for law abiding citizens. Like any individual or organization, the party that more closely matches that central view of NRA is going to receive the most of their backing. But when a democratic candidate (rare, but do exist) also run on minimal gun control, (sometimes the democrat will have a better record than his/her republican opponent) they, too, will receive the NRA's backing.

And I already said the ads were probably dishonest. I used the word probably because I have not seen them. DNC says they are lies, NRA says they are accurate. DNC has a vested interest in finding anything anti-Obama to be lies. Considering Obama's actual record (as opposed to presidential campaign rhetoric) the NRA has a vested interest in criticizing Obama on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. Most likely neither organization is being fully honest in their evaluation of the ads.

YOU also say you have not seen them, but somehow you can make the judgment they are outright lies. How is that? By reading the Washington Post's evaluation? (a media outlet whose democratic and pro-strong gun-control are undeniable.)

I have also stated I believe truth in advertising should be applied to political ads, regardless of their origin. But threatening stations' FCC licenses, who have nothing to do with the content of the ads, is not a proper method for the parties to approach the issue of inaccurate ads. It is using threats (ie: intimidation) to repress a message they do not like.

If both parties do not like it when their opponents run inaccurate ads, then maybe they need to write a law that applies truth in advertising to political ads, instead of deliberately exempting them. But the bottom line is BOTH parties want the "right" to lie about their opponents, but also want the right to prevent their opponents from lying about them. Can't have it both ways.
 
Mottleydude said:
I'm sorry but you just haven't been paying attention. Both sides have been doing this.
Click to expand...
Which I already acknowledged, with the admonition that both sides doing it does not make it right, nor justifies defending the practice. Using threat tactics to remove an unwanted political ad from the media is wrong no matter who is behind it. The politicians wanted to be exempt from truth in advertising - well lies in political ads is the direct result from that maneuver. They are the ones responsible, they can eat the consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top