It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

obama buys 30 minute timeslot on network tv

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Maybe someone needs to buy some time, and run this factual video about Obama. Listen to the video, write down the facts they give, and do your own homework to prove them wrong...
www.citizenslim.com...




posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
i'll give Obama credit, he's a good salesman, to bad he wasn't trying to sell something beside socialist reform and snake oil.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MissysWorld
 


i gave up on that video as soon as it said barack obama was born barry soreto.


we have the birth certificate folks. get over it.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by MissysWorld
 


i gave up on that video as soon as it said barack obama was born barry soreto.


we have the birth certificate folks. get over it.


Sorry for your loss.. You had the perfect opportunity to check out the facts for yourself.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MissysWorld
 


I did and the video already started out wit ha lie in 3 minutes. Why go on?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sos37
Obama wouldn't have had the money to do this 30 minute ad if he hadn't broken one of his very first committments to using only public funds for his campaign.


You sound as "sour" as McCain does about this.

Obama promised to meet with McCain and discuss it. Their lawyers met and determined an agreement could not be reached. He never promised to use only public funds.

Source



In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”


Then why is a SIGNED PLEDGE from OBAMA mentioned in these links???


Obama's decision was a turnaround from a signed pledge to pursue an agreement with McCain to accept public funds and the spending limits that go with them. That was before Obama began hauling in record amounts of donations, and doing so would have meant surrendering a significant advantage over McCain. Negotiations between Obama and McCain never took place.


www.bloomberg.com...


Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean is notorious for speaking his mind. (Remember what he did to that cat during his harangue upon losing in the Iowa caucuses back in January of 2004?)

But when it comes to whether Sen. Barack Obama is making a mistake to break his signed pledge to accept public funding for the general election campaign, the loquacious chairman and ex-governor (but it was only Vermont) turns suddenly mum.


latimesblogs.latimes.com...

And then we have these:


Last year, Obama indicated he would accept public funds if his Republican opponent did as well. On Thursday, however, his spokesman hedged, and campaign finance watchdog groups are ready to pounce.

Based on past statements, Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain have indicated that if each was nominated, a spending and fundraising armistice was possible.


www.huffingtonpost.com...


Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain.


Source: www.washingtonpost.com...


[edit on 30-10-2008 by sos37]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
this 30 minute slot did nothing to help Obama! Lets Face it this 30 min slot did not change the minds of any voters, he didn't earn any new votes, its just a pep assembly for his supporters!

some people say it pulls at your heart strings, Come on you serious? why is it that only the devote Obamaites believe this garbage? the other 50% of the country see right thru this crap!

i watched the first 10 minutes and had to turn it off, it made me sick to my stomache that Americans would buy this socialist propaganda BS!

[edit on 10/29/2008 by Mercenary2007]


It’s [bolded] unintelligent and derailing statements like these that throw the whole thread off-topic. FACTS: Obama is not a socialist, and not all Americans are anti-socialist. Many people like you lack simple reasoning to agree to disagree, and that’s why people have to deal with childish derailing statements such as yours. You watched the infomercial to purposely seek something to whine about, knowing full well you’re a biased neo-con who isn’t voting for Obama anyway, now can we get back on-topic? You’re an American, not the Americans, there’s a huge difference. You’re an antagonist of Obama’s policies, which must mean the last 8 years has been O’So great for the American people… right?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by -zeropoint-]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


The fact you replied with was a signed pledge to meet. The lawyers met with no conclusion. Where is the lie?



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by sos37
 


The fact you replied with was a signed pledge to meet. The lawyers met with no conclusion. Where is the lie?


Neither story says that. In fact one says a "signed pledge to accept". The other says a "signed pledge to pursue".

Now you're just in denial of the facts. Nice try, but you failed, again.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by sos37
 


The fact you replied with was a signed pledge to meet. The lawyers met with no conclusion. Where is the lie?


Neither story says that. In fact one says a "signed pledge to accept". The other says a "signed pledge to pursue".

Now you're just in denial of the facts. Nice try, but you failed, again.


Where’s the game? How did he “fail”? Could you please enlighten me please, thanks!



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
The overnight ratings are out for the networks. Not particularly great numbers, but not bad, either: 26.4 million. It looks like it drew about an 8 share across both demos.

Link

Off the top of my head, I don't know what cable news outlets or cable networks were airing it, it may have only been MSNBC; I know CNN and Fox News did not. Those numbers will not be included. So overall, probably around 30 million viewers, maybe a little more.

What to make of it? Well, one thing is certain: around 100M voters did not watch it. That probably doesn't indicate anything except that Obama may have only preached to the choir last night. It looks like only the die-hards tuned in, for the most part.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   
you have 5 quotes and 3 of the msay in one way or antoher a pursue of an agreement. Meaning talks with the other camp to get something done. You have bloomberg ( republican leaning) that says he agreed. But you have a QUOTE directly from obama himself stating he would pursue.

So again, he pursued and did not come to an agreement.

I know its fun to end posts with you fail, and yadda yadda, but thats simply not the case.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Then why is a SIGNED PLEDGE from OBAMA mentioned in these links???


They are clearly making the same mistake as a lot of people, including you. Bear with me...
There's a lot of information in this thread as well.

Here is the actual paper Obama signed and your links are referring to. You can read exactly what he said. (Question IB)

He supports and would abide by public financing under certain conditions.



My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic
nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


I SUSPECT he couldn't get McCain and the Republican party to give up 527s (which he hates) and so an agreement could not be reached, because McCain is relying heavily on the GOP funds and the 527s.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


you have no idea if it was die hards or undecideds.. thats a reach to just assume like that.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


You're right, I don't know that for certain. That said, its a very safe assumption that a large percentage of Obama's die-hard fans tuned in last night, and if the starting point is 30 million, it likely does not leave a very large number of undecideds in the pool.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

A friendly reminder...



Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

This topic can be discussed in a courtesy manner. Let's show a little civility and decorum, please.

Also, stay on topic:
Obama buys 30 minute timeslot on network tv

If anyone would like to discuss another line of thought, as opposed to the actual topic, then I kindly suggest opening another thread.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Okay, so BH, reading that same document, what exactly do these parts mean to you?


Question: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?



OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.


However this half hour of TV ad time aired last night was not free and the Satellite channel he recently bought was not free. Furthermore, neither were paid for with PUBLIC FINANCING.


My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.


I believe this was written in Barack Obama's own handwriting, was it not? How is he keeping to this plan by returning to private funds?


My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.


Okay, so in the LAST paragraph he says he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee.

But you're also conveniently dismissing the two other parts of his statement that has gone back on - his "plan" to stay within the public financing system. Also, he says he has been a "long-time" advocate of public financing of campaigns. So does his accepting private funds now mean after being a long-time advocate of public funding he is no longer such an advocate? What about "free" TV and Radio air time?

Also, what about that part to return excessive money from donors? We haven't seen anything about any sorts of money being returned to any one donor to my knowledge though I may certainly be wrong about that.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by sos37]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join