Finally Blunt responds to the BHO police state tactics in Missouri

[CADsortaGUY]

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign?s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement


Wow, and people like to whine about Bush.... Here BHO is doing it before he's even elected. This along with threatening TV stations with lawsuits for airing NRA ads... He sure does like playing dirty...

 

[Rainsford]

Any sources besides a Republican governor's site?

 

[RichardE]

This is regarding what?

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign?s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

?St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

?What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

?This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson?s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

?Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.?

Oh nvm, just another partisan hack.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone else smelling another epic CAD failure thread? You have to admire him in some ways... I mean anyone else would have left this place in humiliation a long time ago.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE
This is regarding what?
...

Oh nvm, just another partisan hack.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Any sources besides a Republican governor's site?

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1



Any other questions?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Anyone else smelling another epic CAD failure thread? You have to admire him in some ways... I mean anyone else would have left this place in humiliation a long time ago.

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Meltdown again LOL

Originally posted by: Perknose

So you think that uncovering and confronting lying ads that say the Barrack Obama is a Muslim, which is what your furnished clip mentioned, is . . . wrong?

Meltdown, CAD, you are in a meltdown and can't even see it.

You are the fish and your hysterical right-wing echo chamber is the barrel. Enjoy your swim.

You have lost whatever grip on reality you may ever have had.

You are officially pathetic.

Originally posted by: RichardE
Oh I see, you are upset because something is finally being done about the lying and untruthfull slander found in a the beacon of democracy in the world. It makes sense now. I can entirely understand how you would be against fair and free elections, I think slander and fixing is a much better form.

Good old Partisan Hack CAD.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Looks like missouri has Laws. Looks like Obama's campaign wants those Laws enforced. Looks like some people would rather break the Law with impunity.

Any questions?

Originally posted by: smashp
Poor Little right Wing political shell groups not not able to prey on peoples fears of the "Guns, Gods, and Gay" crowd by using lying and slander.



The Obama Campaign requested the item removed and Listed why.

One example they gave was that the Washington post gave the ad 3 Pinocchios


The Nra responds by saying the "The Washington post is hardly and objective news source" according to our opinion

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Geez, CSG- how many times do we have to call the Wahmbulance for you, anyway?

And for the rest of the Rightie-tighties, as well?

How quickly we've gone from arrogant raving about a permanent majority to outright snivelling... From howling about law and order to squealing about a police state...

Maybe Phil Gramm was right about a "Nation of Whiners"- well, at least about the repub base...

Suck it up! Take it like a Man! was all we heard from that faction for the last 7 years, so, uhh, maybe it's time to take your own advice...

Hey look, it's another one who is looking for a huge helping of crow...

F'n blind hacks...


Edit - they are all lining up in this thread. Like Corn says - it's like shooting fish in a barrel. :laugh: F'n apologist hacks...

 

[BarneyFife]

Meltdown again LOL

 

[Ferocious]

Bad news for the GOP.

Voters knowing the truth that is.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE
This is regarding what?
...

Oh nvm, just another partisan hack.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Any sources besides a Republican governor's site?

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1



Any other questions?

Oh I see, you are upset because something is finally being done about the lying and untruthfull slander found in a the beacon of democracy in the world. It makes sense now. I can entirely understand how you would be against fair and free elections, I think slander and fixing is a much better form.

Good old Partisan Hack CAD.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look, it's another one who is looking for a huge helping of crow...
F'n blind hacks...

Edit - they are all lining up in this thread. Like Corn says - it's like shooting fish in a barrel. :laugh:

Brilliant catch, CAD; Missouri prosecutors plan to charge people and organizations who violate Missouri laws.
They also plan to expose inaccuracies and blatant falsehoods in political ads.

Careful which way you point your gun. It's no fun to shoot yourself in the foot when aiming at that piscine barrel.


edit: sp

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE
This is regarding what?
...

Oh nvm, just another partisan hack.

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Any sources besides a Republican governor's site?

http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1



Any other questions?

So you think that uncovering and confronting lying ads that say the Barrack Obama is a Muslim, which is what your furnished clip mentioned, is . . . wrong?

Meltdown, CAD, you are in a meltdown and can't even see it.

You are the fish and your hysterical right-wing echo chamber is the barrel. Enjoy your swim.

You have lost whatever grip on reality you may ever have had.

You are officially pathetic.

 

[smashp]

States Rights monkey boy

 

[OCGuy]

Its no surprise. Lefties want to censor anything they dont agree with or makes them look bad. A move right out of the Putin/Chavez/Castro/Scientology playbook. Nothing new to see here folks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

More on the BHO tactics against TV stations


APOLOGISTS UNITE!!!! :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

 

[sandorski]

Looks like missouri has Laws. Looks like Obama's campaign wants those Laws enforced. Looks like some people would rather break the Law with impunity.

Any questions?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

You should take notes :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

You should take notes :laugh:

...says the pot...

 

[jman19]

Maybe Blunt should take Missouri law makers to task rather than cry about Obama.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

You should take notes :laugh:

...says the pot...

I'm not the one claiming to be fair and balanced :laugh: , on the contrary I know my views I hold are pretty unfair to certain groups. Such is life.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

You should take notes :laugh:

...says the pot...

I'm not the one claiming to be fair and balanced :laugh: , on the contrary I know my views I hold are pretty unfair to certain groups. Such is life.

No where did I say I was fair and balanced. You obviously haven't been paying attention. I'm not supporting McCain. That doesn't mean I won't go after BHO.

New helping of crow yet...?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
More on the BHO tactics against TV stations


APOLOGISTS UNITE!!!! :laugh:

Poor Little right Wing political shell groups not not able to prey on peoples fears of the "Guns, Gods, and Gay" crowd by using lying and slander.



The Obama Campaign requested the item removed and Listed why.

One example they gave was that the Washington post gave the ad 3 Pinocchios


The Nra responds by saying the "The Washington post is hardly and objective news source" according to our opinion



I mean, Cad, did you get notification to this in your monthly mailer

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234
We do need to be careful about using the government to police the 'truth' of political speech, because it's so easily abused.

I want people to have the right to say they think Bush was behind 9/11, even though I think that's not true.

I haven't seen any info posted so far getting into any specifics, from what the law actually is in their state to the nature of the planned response.

Is this some sort of informal political network? Is it an official law enforcement activity? How will it work in terms of policing each side equally? Etc.

Given the source of this thread, I assume nothing until it's proven.

If anyone has facts, post away.

:thumbsup:

Rational. Non-apologist.

I am impressed. :beer:

You should take notes :laugh:

...says the pot...

I'm not the one claiming to be fair and balanced :laugh: , on the contrary I know my views I hold are pretty unfair to certain groups. Such is life.

No where did I say I was fair and balanced. You obviously haven't been paying attention. I'm not supporting McCain. That doesn't mean I won't go after BHO.

New helping of crow yet...?

Of course not, your not supporting anyone :laugh: Theres another pathetic excuse for a "fair and balanced" supported who loves to attack the dems but is not supporting the other guy. Were you part of the swiftboat crew too? I think that was there mantra :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
More on the BHO tactics against TV stations


APOLOGISTS UNITE!!!! :laugh:

Poor Little right Wing political shell groups not not able to prey on peoples fears of the "Guns, Gods, and Gay" crowd by using lying and slander.



The Obama Campaign requested the item removed and Listed why.

One example they gave was that the Washington post gave the ad 3 Pinocchios


The Nra responds by saying the "The Washington post is hardly and objective news source" according to our opinion



I mean, Cad, did you get notification to this in your monthly mailer

Did you even read the NRA reply to the weak Post article? I guess not if you think that was the NRA's response.