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.

 

Badnarik's name slips on FOX News!! O'Reilly not happy...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Okay, I think the Libertarians on this board are going to enjoy this.

(08/26/04)-
"Muslims for Badnarik represented on O'Reilly Factor tonight.

Dr. Dean Ahmad is scheduled to be on the O'Reilly Factor this evening.

The following was posted on the Internet at www.billoreilly.com...:



Personal Story Segment

Muslim community split over Bush
The relatively small Muslim population in the United States seems to be split on President Bush.

Guests: Muhammad Ali Hassan, co-founder of Muslims for Bush & Dr. Dean Ahmad, Bush critic


"


And then look at THIS:

"As mentioned in a previous posting, Badnarik supporter Dr. Dean Ahmad was scheduled to appear on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. Ahmad declined to be on the program after he was denied the right to mention Badnarik's name on the show. A transcript of Ahmad's version of the story is below:





The show is off! O'Reilly has pulled an O'Reilly.

I was actually in the car being driven to the show when his deputy called me and informed me that although they would identify me as a Muslim supporter of [Michael] Badnarik, that I was not allowed to mention Michael's name on the show! I declined to accept those terms and they had the driver bring me back. Michael must really have the Republicans terrified!

I. Dean Ahmad




And that's not even the best part... As the story continues....

"Apparently, O'Reilly had an alternate guest lined up to replace Dr. Ahmad, as Khalid Turaani, the founder of Arab-American Republicans Against Bush, appeared on the program.

The Badnarik campaign got the last laugh tonight, however. The following is a quote from Mr. Turaani on the program tonight:

"I don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face by not liking Bush and jumping in the lap of Kerry. No - I will vote Libertarian and I think Badnarik is going to be a good choice for people who don't like Bush." "



And you want to know how it happened? Listen to this, its a letter from Dr. Ahmad, the guy who was originally supposed to be on the show!




I just got off the phone with Khalid Turaani. Here's what happened:

They called him 30 minutes before taping and asked him if he would take the anti-Bush position on the show. He agreed and they rushed him down to the studio. They kept pressing him as to whom he would vote for and he kept dodging the question, saying he would say that on the show. Kerry? No, he said, I'm a conservative, I would never vote for Kerry. At the studio they pressed real hard and he admitted that he planned to vote for Badnarik. When he saw the panic in their eyes he realized that despite their "fair and balanced" claims, they were Bush supporters. They tried to dissuade him from mentioning it on air, but by then it was too late to do to him what they did to me. He went on the air and said that a vote against Bush need not be a vote for Kerry and that he would vote for Badnarik, the Libertarian.

NOTICE TO BADNARIK CAMPAIGN: Khalid like thousands of other Muslims will be at the Islamic Society of North America convention in Chicago on Labor Day weekend. We have been invited to attend. If we don't send Michael himself rather than a surrogate, we will be blowing it. There is a rising interest in Badnarik's campaign among Muslims and we should turn it into an avalanche. A word to the wise is sufficient.

I. Dean Ahmad



I thought this is a pretty amazing story. This is the THIRD time (as far as the Badnarik campaign knows) that FOX News has deliberately changed the show in order to avoid, or in this case try to avoid, Michael Badnarik or his name being mentioned on O'Reillys show.

Are the Republicans really this terrified of the Libertarians?! If they are, I am sure they would never admit it, but their actions seem to speak for themselves!

The title of the original story for The O'Reilly Show read "Muslim community split over Bush." But this seems not to be the case, it seems the Muslim community isn't split over Bush, they are split over Badnarik!

The Libertarians most certainly got the "last laugh" in this one though.




((The source of this information is from www.badnarik.org/blog/, yet it will not allow me to display the actual links in this forum for some reason.))



[edit on 27-8-2004 by sillinous]




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
That's exactly what it will take for conservatives to realize there is an alternative.


Don't like Bush?
Don't like Kerry?

There is an option.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Hmm... Bill isn't on his show tonight... Maybe he got in trouble with the big guys at FOX!



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sillinous
Hmm... Bill isn't on his show tonight... Maybe he got in trouble with the big guys at FOX!


Wouldn't suprise me, it seemed the orders of "NO UTTERANCE OF THE WORDS 'Libertarian' and 'Badnarik' ALLOWED" came from above.

O'Reilly seems to but himself in binds between him, and the Higher-ups at Fox News Network. The PATRIOT Act challenge, the Russo interview, and just yesterday Dean Ahmed.

The Bush-lovers at the top of Fox News must be afraid of letting people know about Badnarik. They don't want to lose their lovey-dovey relationship with Bush.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Well obviously the other two parties, especially the republicans, are scared of Badnarik and the LP message. Badnarik has made it clear he has valid reasons for being in the debates and the other parties just ignore him.

It's time for a change!



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Check this out I emailed him again and called him out over this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lets see if I get a response



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I gotta tell you, O'Reilly and his attitude get really old, really fast.
One wonders who his target audience is anymore? It's hard to believe it could be intelligent people who want impartial and fair interviews. Even harder to believe B.O. touts letting folks have their say


[edit on 27-8-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Everytime I see his show he is trying to promote his book. He's like, "let's read a letter....ok, I'll sign my new book and send you a copy." *hint hint*

Get this, he is coming out with a book O' Reilly for Kids. Man, this guy is full of himself.

Maybe he is preparing himself to eventually let a Libertarian on. I'm sure his questions and replies will be scripted though. But Libertarians think outside of the box and that will be the downfall for O' Reilly in such a debate.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Get this, he is coming out with a book O' Reilly for Kids. Man, this guy is full of himself.


I know, I heard that; wanted to barf, and wondered if this man was Hitler incarnate!

I mean, WTF?!


Fictional book, do not look for it
NAZISM (O'Reilly style) FOR KIDS!
By: Bill O'Reilly

Page 1.

(Size 35 font) Bill O'Reilly is always correct, never question, always agree.
(Picture of Bill in godly-like pose)

Page 2

Read Page 1 again!





[edit on 8-27-2004 by BeingWatchedByThem]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Hey, what started the animosity towards Badnarik?

It seems pretty weird that someone is that adamant about
the name even being mentioned..

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks,

Space



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sillinous
Are the Republicans really this terrified of the Libertarians?! If they are, I am sure they would never admit it, but their actions seem to speak for themselves!


Of course not! Don't you see the willingness of Republicans to debate the LP at every turn and post?


Hey, I don't agree with 50% of the LP platform, but at least I engage you guys. No threat to me whatsoever. Let the issues be discussed in public. Because unlike NADER
you have something to say and bring something unique to the table.

But the party that used to be about "the conservative revolution"
are currently pooping their depends over the LP. Hard to be the party of revolution when you RUN EVERYTHING and have no one to blame for increased social spending like $1.8 billion more to immigrants for food stamps...

See Bush, see Bush pander, pander Bush, pander!!!


I enjoy debate with real conservsatives like the LP.
Good for you guys. Keep it up and Soros will be bankrolling you next election.


I'm not saying any LP voter agrees with Kerry on more than 50% of issues (the social and civil liberties angle), but WE ALL SHARE A COMMON ENEMY IN THE NEOCONS that share none of our values for liberty or economics.

Hey, when LP finally kills off the the last RNC dinosaur, the Dems will be happy to meet you in debate no doubt. Real debate about economics and issues. Not this Rovian BS we're forced to live with and respond to in kind. Then you can wail and rail against the Dems all ya want. But know who your real enemies are now based on who you threaten. It's not the party that doesn't have control of the Senate, Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, most governerships, most pulpits, most media outlets...
It's the one that does.

Our common enemy, the NEOCONS.

And keep your eye out for infiltrators trying to redirect debate and issues. You already have them I'm sure.

And I'm not one by the way.
I never hide the fact I'm liberal or a Democrat and have serious issues with some LP philosophy. But ask yourself, why do you get me in debate and no Republicans? Hmmm.

Because when it comes to Conservative issues.... YOU ARE RIGHT AND BUSH IS WRONG.




posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
www.logcabin.org...

"Inclusion wins?" Sure it does when you aren't voting against your own interests. Dumb bunnies.

The LCR sham is NOT run by who it appears to be IMHO. It's classic hard core neocon poseurs.

There's a million LP votes right there, if you can shake some sense into them.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don't mean any offense, but I am getting the feeling you may have alterior motives.

I am guessing that you would love to see a million conservative voters defect and vote LP so that it will take votes away from GW and help your candidate. The same way Nader is accused of taking Gore votes in 2000 and helping GW win.

I'd like to see Badnarik get that kind of support, but not at the expense of another candidate. I would like to see him get them because people truly believe him to be the best representative of their views.

What would be great is if the apathetic voters from 2000 all showed up this time around and voted from Badnarik. Completely blowing out the pollsters predictions. If the results of this election were to turn out completely different from any predictions made by the pollsters, perhaps it would take away all of their credibility and get them out of politics.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
But they aren't exactly ulterior motives when stated. I am a liberal that wants Bush to lose. I'll take all the allies I can get to that end, as the enemy of my enemy (and all that).

I cast no shadow on this issue, like O'Reilly does...who claims no motive for denying the public access to Badnarik issues.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any Republican engaged crosstalk with Libertarians on issues other than the sympathetic Kerry bashing. That's a cop out IMO, and why I have and do specifically engage LP in issue debate. The LP is a threat to the RNC though (especially with the LCR group I named that have no business voting RNC). But the RNC would just as soon keep their shadow anti-liberal operatives in check from real power as evident by the media here, and keep voters from learning more about LP.

As for the Nader thing. When Dems are funding and financially backing the LP the same way the RNC does Nader, you'll have something there. Maybe they should...I don't know. But dirty tricks like that just seem so Republican...I couldn't do it.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I got to agree with Rant on this If I was on Kerrys think tank I would be HELPING bankroll the LP.

We would take most of our votes from Bush not Kerry it seems a no-brainer

It also seems that we have a REAL conspericy here with a major network not allowing even the mention of a candidates name and no-one seems to care.

[edit on 28-8-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
People, it isn't Bill's fault, Bush&Co have come out before and told the major news networks that if they discuss Third Party people or issues, they will be punished ie media blackout, fines, FCC sicked on them like they did on Stern, IRS Audits, so forth.

It isn't Fox News's fault, they are scared to death of Bush&Co. Well, it is partly Fox New's fault, they support Bush, but not all their fault.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
People, it isn't Bill's fault, Bush&Co have come out before and told the major news networks that if they discuss Third Party people or issues, they will be punished ie media blackout, fines, FCC sicked on them like they did on Stern, IRS Audits, so forth.

It isn't Fox News's fault, they are scared to death of Bush&Co. Well, it is partly Fox New's fault, they support Bush, but not all their fault.



Do you have any links for this



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Agreed james, with emphasis on the Co in Bush&Co as I think the government, FCC, media, etc. are all interchangable at this point and the Bush call to end all 527's (the people's independent voice) is the final straw in eradicating public access to corporate owned (formerly public) airwaves.

If Swifties were 50% designed to make people mad at Kerry, the other mission might as well have been to make the masses mad at people that excercise their First Amendment rights.

We already have big media demonizing anyone that makes a documentary, and the public laps up the charge accordingly.

My question is...why do we hate ourselves so much? Why do we love monopolies so? That liberty minded conservatives would even consider Bush's suggestion to limit access to the airwaves is just a shame.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Hello?

Knock knock...?

So, what started Oreilly's animosity towards Badnarik?
Has He stated why the candidate is such a problem?
anyone? anyone?



[edit on 29-8-2004 by spacedoubt]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Hello?

Knock knock...?

So, what started Oreilly's animosity towards Badnarik?
Has He stated why the candidate is such a problem?
anyone? anyone?



[edit on 29-8-2004 by spacedoubt]



I dont really know.

I know that he has repetedly refused to debate him and has bumped guests off the show out of fear of them just MENTIONING his name or the Libertarian party.

I had heard that a Libertarian had made him look like the little neo-nazi that he is and that was what started it but I have NOTHING to back it up so it might be just a story.

What I believe is that they just know that if the Libertarian message geets out the Republican party as it is know today is doomed. It will be split up between those that love freedom and pretty much all that will be left in the Republicans will be the religious right.



[edit on 29-8-2004 by Amuk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join