CNN - Obama PAC ad a lie - cancer victim had insurance

archer wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote:

archer wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote: Wow, I didn't think you of alll people would brush this ad off as no big deal. If a romney superpac did something this dispicable, would you not be screaming for him to denounce it? I would.

I seriously doubt that.....they are super PACS......complain all you want, they have no rules, the conservatives on the Supreme Court made sure of that. And surely Romney has no cause to complain "Corporations are people, my friends"....and they have free speech too, and they can contribute all they want to these super PACs with immunity, or so it seems. This is the new face of political campaigns, brought to you by conservatives. So deal with it Bill.....

So if Rmooney makes up a bs ad about how Obama killed somebody, you would be ok with that? How could an ad get any sleazier that claiming Romney is somehow at fault for a woman's cancer death? Good luck with that one.

Sorry, not even close. The ad basically is saying that the American peple deserve answers about the F&F coverup/blunder. Nowhere in the ad is Obama getting blamed for Terry's death. But as LJ always says "thanks for playing"... or maybe you just never watched the ad.

There is an ad out there that insinuates Obama is responsible for the death of a young man in the fast and furious debacle?

Lobbying group American Future Fund released a new Operation Fast and Furious ad on Wednesday aimed at pushing President Barack Obama’s administration for “answers and accountability.”

The ad begins: “December 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry [was] gunned down along the Arizona-Mexico border.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/group ... z23AOSrIZ6

Since there is no proof that the president caused this man's death, I guess I should be all bent out of shape over this ad, and screaming like a little pig as the conservatives have done over the Obama super PAC ad.....get a grip people, these are super PACS, and they lie, and they lie some more....and if you think your guy Romney and his super PACs don't lie as much as you claim Obama and his super PACs do, then maybe you would be interested in some ocean front property I own in Arizona.

CritiKalBill wrote:
Sorry, not even close. The ad basically is saying that the American peple deserve answers about the F&F coverup/blunder. Nowhere in the ad is Obama getting blamed for Terry's death. But as LJ always says "thanks for playing"... or maybe you just never watched the ad.

Well there ya go....it's all in how one interprets an ad.....I saw the Obama ad, and my interpretation was that it was a condemnation of outsourcing jobs and the resulting hardships on those who lose those jobs, most specifically losing health insurance. Apparently Romney's campaign saw it the same way, thus the statement that if this guy had lived in Mass he would have been able to get insurance from Romneycare. It wasn't until they saw an opportunity to spin it that the super PAC was calling Romney a murderer did all the fuss begin. If you watch the Romney super PAC ad, sure, your interpretation is that they want more disclosure, another interpretation is that Fast and Furious caused this man's death (and that interpretation has been used by conservatives ever since the young man died) and that Obama was involved.

But yeah, thanks for playing Bill.

plaidvillain wrote: Tasteless and deceptive ad. This is the monster created by unlimited donations to the PACs. Neither Obama or Romney can coordinate these ads with the PACs, but they probably do...which is all the more reason to get the money out of the process.

And how do you propose to do that PV - take away their constitutional right to express their opinions?

I've got a better idea. Let's require that political ads display a truth meter rating of some kind as determined by a "non-partisan" panel at the start of the ad or displayed prominently in the upper left corner of print ads. That way no one is denying anyone's ability to say what they wish to say, they'd just have to endure knowing the public was being told in advance of viewing it that the ad was entirely, partially, or relatively from, deceptive content. Maybe we make it so that the truth meter is displayed at the same time the voice over of who generated the ad is read just to add an extra measure of accountability.

What do you say PV - you up for lobbying our State legislature to pass such a law for Colorado?

Nope. As evidenced by past debates between yourself and I, there are times "truth" or "lies" depend upon the perspective of the person making the statement, or the perspective of the person hearing the statement. We've both made comments the other felt were mistruths, but as an individual, we ha believed them to be true. I don't need any 3rd party to tell me when to believe something is true or not...I'll do my own research.

Money is not speech. Corporations are not people. Citizens United was a huge leap towards fascism, and if it isn't overturned, it could destroy our country. To me, that statement is absolutely truth...to you, probably not...but it's beautiful we have the freedom to have our own opinions. I'm surprised you'd be willing to hand that freedom over.

A corporation is an assembly of individuals PV, nothing more, nothing less. Whether the stock of the company is in private or public hands is of no consequence, it is held by an assembly of individuals and the right of associations comprised of individuals to speak their minds on matters political is no more or less protected than the one you have as a single individual. That has been, and continues to be, the opinion of the Court dating back to the 19th century. You act like Citizen's United was a new decision - it wasn't. It was an affirmation of the decisions reached by the Court back in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo and in 1978 in Bellotti. To say that a corporation is allowed to speak with regards to ballot measures but not candidates can't be supported by anything resembling reason. To say that "The Press" consists of newspapers and broadcasters but not book publishers or movies is absurd on its face. To say that associations of workers can speak but not associations of business owners is ludicrous at best.

There is no substantive difference between George Soros or the Kock Brothers paying to have a million political pamphlets printed and distributed to individual Colorado homes and their deciding to air a 30 second spot during a televised broadcast that reaches a million viewers or contributing their money and pooling it along with others who think similarly to realize the same purpose. There is no substantive difference between a million individuals pitching in 20 bucks each to buy the time to air their commercial, 20 people kicking in a million dollars each for the same purpose or a single individual spending 20 million dollars. It's the speech they wish others to hear that is protected - you can't take the ability to speak away from any of them.

You don't like the speech of CrossRoads, don't patronize any of the companies that contributed to the PAC or buy their stock regardless of how much it will help out your IRA and 401(K). You like what the folks over at Priorities USA have to say, send a few bucks their way to help them get the message out. That's the way things work PV. You don't get to shut anyone up simply because they have more money than you do and you don't want others hearing what they have to say. The incumbents in office don't get to silence the voices of those who are dissatisfied with what they've done in order to help them hold onto their seats.

As a last resort, try convincing 66% of the States or their representatives in Congress that limiting speech based on the identity of the speaker is a good idea and see how far that gets you. If you manage to get that far, you only have to convince another 9% to join you to put a muzzle on the speakers you don't want to hear from.