B. Hussein Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

B. Hussein Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action

Postby Tom Phillips* » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:09 pm

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT

Vol. 15, No. 39 09/26/08
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (800) 392-8683 Fax: (703) 267-3918
www.NRAILA.org

Obama Campaign Threatens Legal Action Over NRA Ads
Campaign and DNC Launch Assault On First Amendment!

Earlier this week, NRA-PVF released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.

They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads. They have sent intimidating cease and desist letters to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

Impartial? Independent? Apparently NOT! FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation: FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

Outrage Of The Week: This week's Outrage comes to us courtesy of U.S. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) who recently lashed out at Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin (R) while trying to muster support for anti-gun Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Hastings has a well-deserved reputation for opening his mouth and speaking his mind. But this week, when he opened his mouth, he put his foot into it. Way into it.

America's Largest and Most Radical Hunting-Ban Group Endorses Barack Obama--It's Just One More Association With Radicals That He Can't Run From: While Barack Obama lies to America's gun owners and hunters about his longstanding public record in support of legislation stripping Americans of essential liberties, his so-called friends are thwarting his campaign of deception. The Humane Society Legislative Fund, the political arm of the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is the most recent to foil Obama's best laid plans after giving him the organization's unequivocal endorsement. This should be a resounding wake-up call to America's millions of hunters.

2008 Gun Rights Policy Conference: This year's Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) will be held in Phoenix, Arizona, on September 26, 27, & 28, at the beautiful Sheraton Crescent hotel. The theme of this year's conference is "Elect Freedom!"

Time Is Running Out To Register To Vote! One of the simplest, yet most important, things gun owners can do this election season is ensure they are currently registered to vote. Our vote is our voice; if we don't use it, we will lose it! We can't afford to let others decide for us who will represent our interests in Washington or in the state legislatures. Many states voter registration deadlines expire 30 days prior to Election Day (November 4th), so time is running out!
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California


Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:25 pm

I saw this and thought about posting it up. Thanks Tom*

It just more rule by lawyers. Do what I say or get ready to spend millions in court. Sadly, it is a very effective way to intimidate people. This should scare the hell out of people because think what powers of intimidation Obama will have at hand if he is President :eek:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16298
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby semo88 » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:18 pm

I was reading the reason that Obama doesn't like the ads is that they are allegedly deceptive. I don't even remember what site I read it on, but it said that the ads were designed to look like Obama's campaign literature (very similar layout, color scheme, etc.), and even the writing scheme was designed to look like something the Obama campaign would write to try to entice voters. Deceptive, yeah, but then again that’s campaigning for you, regardless of who’s doing it. Doesn’t sound like anything much worse than what a lot of others candidates/groups do.

FWIW, it doesn’t sound to me so much like the Obama campaign trying “to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment” as some would have you believe. You can find Obama or McCain’s record anywhere on the internet. I think it really is the campaign trying to get a deceptive ad banned, regardless of whether it’s any more deceptive than others.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Tom Phillips* » Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:14 am

semo88 wrote:I was reading the reason that Obama doesn't like the ads is that they are allegedly deceptive.


Ooooohhhh Nnnooooooo.

"Allegedly deceptive." What should we do? :eek:

Screw B. Hussein Obama and all his little minions who want to take our Rights and Freedoms away. We have the right of Free Speech.

Thank God.
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:13 am

Obama has used similar tricks as he moved up every rung of the ladder.

He got his state legislature seat by getting a judge to declare all real challengers including the incumbent Democrat declared inelligible. This gave him an effectively uncontested election to the Illinois state legislature.

When he was running for his current U.S. Senate seat, he was losing. He got a California judge to release the sealed divorce records of his opponent. This embarrassed his opponent into dropping out. He wins this seat in an effectively uncontested election.

It's the Chicago machine politics goon squad mentality. There are no limits to the tricks they will use to get what they want. Sicking lawyers onto small business and threatening them with lawsuits is pure intimidation. They know these small business cannot fight back. Even if they tried, the election would be over and it wouldn't matter who actually won the lawsuit. They can win in two ways. One from the pure intimidation. Secondly, they get a liberal judge to put an injunction on the ad while he "considers" the arguments and he will consider them until sometime in early November :huh: Even the NRA cannot fight a judge in such a short time.

All the rest is just perfume to hide the stench of the bullshit.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16298
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby yukoncornelius » Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:39 am

honestly, just another create unreasonable fear money grab by the overpaid CEOS at the NRA

NRA stopped getting any more $$ from me years ago....
yukoncornelius
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:22 am

Postby semo88 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:27 am

Tom Phillips* wrote:
semo88 wrote:I was reading the reason that Obama doesn't like the ads is that they are allegedly deceptive.


Ooooohhhh Nnnooooooo.

"Allegedly deceptive." What should we do? :eek:

Screw B. Hussein Obama and all his little minions who want to take our Rights and Freedoms away. We have the right of Free Speech.

Thank God.


No need to get all uptight there fella, I'm just telling you what I read.

I agree with those who think trying to get the ads banned is a little ridiculous, but I also agree with yukoncornelius that this latest "alert" is just more NRA scare tactics.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:52 am

The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby Tom Phillips* » Tue Sep 30, 2008 12:09 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.


How would you know? You were never a part of it.

Mailed any bricks lately?
Júdica me, Deus.
Tom Phillips*
hunter
 
Posts: 1655
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, California

Postby GroundSwatter » Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:15 pm

The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics


I used to think they were just scare tactics too, but then then Washington DC banned guns, against the second amendment, and once it reached the supreme court it was a 5-to-4 decision. What is there to question, it is your right as an American so why wasn't a unanimous decision. There was no ambiguity in what our founding fathers meant when they put in the second amendment. Just go back and read the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

You would think the biggest clue would be that when they banned guns in DC, crime went up, not down.

Make no mistake, left wing liberals are trying to do away with the second amendment. I'm surprised anyone who loves to hunt and is a gun owner would back Obama.

I guess the liberals are doing whatever helps them sleep better at night, but I sleep a lot better with a gun near my bed, because when an intruder hears the racking of a shotgun shell, he's going to think twice before he takes another step.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Postby semo88 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:46 pm

I am in no way supportive of getting rid of anyone's guns, but there IS ambiguity in the 2nd amendment. It talks about a militia when describing the reason why there is a need for arms. If it simply said “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then there would be absolutely no ambiguity, but because it speaks of a well-regulated militia before mentioning that citizens need to be armed (and since there aren’t a lot of militias running around these days), it can be interpreted as “guns are only a constitutional right if owned for militia purposes, which applies to few if any citizens today.” I don’t necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it is very easy to see how it can be interpreted that way. And if there was no ambiguity, there would be a lot less gun laws and a lot less arguments/court cases over what the 2nd amendment was originally intended to mean.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:23 pm

Today the militia includes every adult. Back then it included every able-bodied adult white male.

Every word has meaning. You can't erase any without changing the meaning.

It is not an unrestricted right to own nuclear arms. Nobody is arguing that machine guns should be unrestricted. Felons lose their right to keep and bear arms, but not other rights. Children do not have a right to keep and bear arms. The severely mentally ill do not have a right to bear arms.

If it was unambiguous as you wrote it, then you could not have any restrictions at all. The restrictions cannot undermine the basic right of the people to keep and bear arms, however every individual does not have that right if they are reasonably disqualified. That is why there is some necessary ambiguity.

It also doesn't mean that you can just keep them locked in a gun safe. You also have a right to bear them.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16298
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby semo88 » Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:44 pm

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me.
semo88
hunter
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Missouri

right to bear arms for other purposes?

Postby DuckDuckGoose.... » Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:03 am

Don't forget that the 2nd ammendment was written at a time of English tyranny and the goal was to make sure that type of tyranny was not translated into our newly formed goverment. A government of the people for the people.

We are no longer a government of the people. We are a government of the politicians for the politicians. They care only about their own personal agendas. We are very close to a socialized government raining down similar infringing tyranny on our individual rights.

Now more than ever we need to protect all of our individual rights.

When it comes to the 2nd ammendment the idea of hunting was as ingrained as any right. The luck we have had is that the right to bear arms is translated to hunting rights. It probably never crossed the minds of those who wrote the constitution that the ability to hunt would ever be challenged. Hunting was a right because of the absolute necessity in those days.
# of times able to get out hunting.. 1
Duck totals:
Mallards:
Wood Ducks:
Mergansers:
Bufflehead:
DuckDuckGoose....
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Southern Maine

Postby seastreet » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:45 pm

Tom Phillips* wrote:
Pacific Fisher wrote:The NRA continues to narrow its base by scare tactics and failing to create broader based coalitions with hunting groups that are made up of Democratic voters as well as Republicans. It is a strategy that will weaken the NRA and the broader base of the hunting and conservation community that is needed to carry forth in the defense of anti hunting sentiments in the US.


How would you know? You were never a part of it.

Mailed any bricks lately?


Not to fear Tom... PF is a staunch stump endorser of the Sierra Club. While he insists that the Sierra Club is pro-hunting and pro-gun, their actions speak loader than their rhetoric. Just like the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Shell organization with deceptive names run by left wing wackos with ulterior agendas. No one with any amount of common sense buys it.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby Pacific Fisher » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:52 pm

Wrong again Seastreet,

The Sierra Club is pro hunting and fishing. They have a section of their web site devoted to it. It is supported in their official, national policy approved by their board of directors.
Last year they gave away a hunting trip to Alaska, and this year they have a hunting and fishing photo contest.

For more info visit their site:

http://sierrasportsmen.org/sierrasportsmen/welcome/


Joe Wilson is a genuine American hero - George Bush
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby seastreet » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:30 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:Wrong again Seastreet,

The Sierra Club is pro hunting and fishing. They have a section of their web site devoted to it. It is supported in their official, national policy approved by their board of directors.
Last year they gave away a hunting trip to Alaska, and this year they have a hunting and fishing photo contest.

For more info visit their site:

http://sierrasportsmen.org/sierrasportsmen/welcome/


Joe Wilson is a genuine American hero - George Bush


Sorry... That dog don't hunt. Their actions speak louder than their rhetoric. Let's start a poll to get everyone's opinion.

Like the AHSA, they are a shell with ulterior motives that counter everyday hunters and the opportunities on public land.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby Pacific Fisher » Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:21 pm

Wrong again Seastreet,

Sierra Club's Policy On Sport Hunting & Fishing
Wildlife and Native Plant Management, Sport Hunting And Fishing - Wildlife and native plant management should emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy, viable native plant and animal populations, their habitats, and ecological processes. Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations.

Because national parks are set aside for the preservation of natural landscapes and wildlife, the Sierra Club is opposed to sport hunting in national parks.
— Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, December 10-11, 1994.

More examples below and plenty more available.
C.B.

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierrasportsmen/campaigns/
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby seastreet » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:01 pm

Cheap rhetoric don't take the taco. Their actions speak far louder than words. My links showing their true colors pretty much null and voids their misleading mission statement and phoney "pro-hunting" rhetoric.

http://www.duckhuntingchat.com/viewtopic.php?p=551743#551743
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby Pacific Fisher » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:35 pm

Seastreet,

Maybe you are a closet Paul Weston fan.

The Sierra Club hunting and fishing library can be found at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 29324.html

If an organization was anti hunting, why would it have a hunting and fishing library? :rofl:


Joe Wilson is a genuine American hero.George Bush
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby seastreet » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:10 am

So does the AHSA, but everyone knows they are a closet left wing org too.

No matter how much powdered sugar you pour on top of bovine excrement, it is still bovine excrement at the end of the day.

The Sierra Club has a real perception problem with hunters and gun owners. Why is that?
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:44 am

We are seeing the infiltration of the hippie types here. Do you guys even hunt? Or are you just here to participate in the political debate?
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8603
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby GroundSwatter » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:26 am

jaysweet3 wrote:We are seeing the infiltration of the hippie types here. Do you guys even hunt? Or are you just here to participate in the political debate?


No kidding. Its almost as if people want to vote to have their guns taken away.

Also here is a great article:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/11/hunters/poole-text.html

If you want to put money back into nature, keep buying your states hunting licenses and ammunition. They contribute largely to your states natural resources. I also give money to DU and those types of organizations that are obviously pro hunter. I would suggest if you have any reservations about the sierra club, then put your money elsewhere.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:11 am

jaysweet3 wrote:We are seeing the infiltration of the hippie types here. Do you guys even hunt? Or are you just here to participate in the political debate?


My experience on other political forums is that it is more common that right wing folks that enter these forums to talk politics that have little or no hunting experience and contribute little or nothing to the forums on: duck calling, shooting, reloading, dog training, decoys, hunting gear etc...

I have 50 years of hunting experience. I have been a licensed hunting and fishing guide for 24 years. I grew up running trap-lines, am a third generation trainer of bird dogs, I reload, build/accurize my own rifles, and have been the Chair of a County Fish and Game Commission for a dozen years.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby jaysweet3 » Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:26 pm

If that is in fact the case. How can you support a presidential canadidate that is so anti hunting and gun? In Obama's short political career, he has voted anti gun and hunting at every oppertunity. I think, there, is your first real reason, not to vote for him.

Then you can take a look at his stance on crime. Votes against anti gang legislation, mandatiry minimums, and at the same time votes against home owners defending their own homes. He panders to his constituenty at every chance to garner votes, at the expense of everyone else.

Since he has such a limited ammount of time as an elected politician, we need to look beyond his voting record, to get a guage on what kind of a man we are considering electing. So far not too encouraging. He has shown nothing but, poor judgement in his personal, social, political, and business asociations. Allingning himself with the likes of Ayers, Rezko, and Wright. Good judgement. Ha! Anything but.


Take a look at the recent events with this bailout nonsence. McCain was right there in Washington to work on and make decisions (weither we agree with them or not). Obama was out on the road campainging and dodgeing having to make a real decision. The man has dodged a lot of the big votes that would define him one way or the other. He is afraid to make a wrong decision, so in turn he doesn't make one. While in the Illinois legislature he voted present 170 times.

The one thing he is good at is taking money from special interest groups. In short order he gets millions in prokbarell money that goes nowhere. I live in Obamas state. He is my senator. He has done NOTHING. Let me repeat that, NOTHING, for the people of Illinois. Proabably spent more time campaigning for his own political career than working for the people that elected him.


Now he blames everything against Bush, (who he isn't running against) and cries about change. Basically bumpersticker slogans and everyone eats it up.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8603
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests