What in the hell cite is that?
sigh They can still say any damned thing they want to, and be heard by anyone they want to. If they can’t be on Air Force One, that isn’t “muzzling political speech” except maybe in Bill O’Reilly’s addled head. It just means, oh noes, they may not get an exclusive interview. Note that interviews aren’t protected speech.
As I just offered, it wasn’t my imagination that came up with it. So, shove your Occam’s Razor up your ass you smug little dipshit. But since you seem to have all the answers, what do you think he had in mind? Is he going to pay in kind to McCain? Or was his threat directed more to the people he was talking to? If the latter, I ask you again, what do YOU think he had in mind. Surely you have a little imagination. No?
What are you, new? 
This is just par for the course. Every few weeks, magellan01 posts a politically-oriented thread to showcase his stupidity, and it’s always hilarious. See here, for example.
He’s one of the few SDMB jackoffs I would miss if he were ever to leave.
I have very little love for the recent strain of republicans and detest GWB. I’m also not a huge fan of McCain, but I do think he would be a break from the past. And while people have surely had enough of hypocrites running roughshod over rules and traditions, I’m afraid that things won’t change much in that regard regardless of who is elected.
Maybe what he means is that they should be “careful” because, if you play the character assassination game with a candidate’s family, it can come back and bite you on the ass in the public perception. I don’t know whether or not that’s what he meant, but it’s at least as plausible as your ridiculous theorizing about how he wants to suppress free speech.
Anyway, much as i like Obama and hope he becomes President, i also think that Michelle Obama is fair game for any comments that she makes in support of his campaign. If candidates want to put family, friends, or other parties front and center in their political posturing, then they shouldn’t be surprised when those people become political targets. I made a similar argument some months ago when Democrats were complaining about conservatives focusing on a family in Maryland over the whole SCHIP thing.
I think, in this case, Obama’s best strategy would have been to point how how narrow and selective the GOP had been in its use of Michelle Obama’s comments, how they had misrepresented her position, and how their implications of anti-Americanism were stupid and beside the point.
Some OPs you’ve posted to this effect? All I ever remember are “Oh noes! Libruls are gonna take our gunz and make us marrie fags!!!”
Show us how open minded you are.
-Joe
Call me crazy, I’m generally content to take people’s words at face value unless there’s reason to think otherwise. I can imagine all sorts of things, but the hallmark of adulthood is being able to separate fantasy from fact. I suggest you try it.
Well, that didn’t answer my question at all. *How * is anyone “muzzled” by not being invited onto Air Force One? *In what way * are they being prevented from exercising their right to free speech?
That could be what he meant, but that doesn’t seem to mesh with the words he used, does it. He issued an ultimatum of sorts. A “stop this, or else”. What’s the “or else”?
100% agreement.
So, I ask you yet AGAIN, what did he mean?
Can a single one of you McCain bashers provide a cite proving that John Mc2008 DOES plaster on the makeup like a trollop?
I thought not.
They’re being “encouraged” to silence their opposition lest they not be able to enjoy a benefit they might be offered.
Here’s where some artist on the board needs to alter a picture of McCain to show him dolled up like a 19th century whore and post it here. 
I don’t think I’ve started any posts along those lines. But I have many, many times declared my disapproval of GWB and pointed out that I never did vote for the man. I’ve also stated that one of the saddest and most infuriating days was when the GOP annointed him their candidate. I’ve also mused that it might be the best thing for conservatism for true conservatives to vote for the democratic nominee. But I wouldn’t say I’m any more or less open minded than anyone else.
For the record, I’m for equal rights for gays. Except to the term “marriage”. But I guess around here, that’s just a scooch away from being a fag-bashing bigot. :rolleyes:
But we digress…
Usually, “muzzled” in this context means “not allowed to speak.” Therefore, their right to free speech has been abridged. Are you using a different definition? In your scenario, what exactly is preventing them from speaking? Not getting a plane ride that 99.9999999999999…% of the speakers in this country will never get? You can’t be serious.
Well, the fact that you have to ask what it is suggests that there may not even be one. Obama did not explicitly state “Stop it, or else,” and outlined no consequences. As i suggested earlier, he could merely have meant something like “Stop it, or else i’ll retaliate in kind” or “Stop it, or it might come back to bite you on the ass.”
In the absence of specifics uttered by Obama himself, all we can do is make inferences. It seems to me that the inferences you draw, in which Obama will allegedly infringe upon the free speech rights of the people he’s criticizing, are something of a stretch, to say the least.
Or else he’ll treat those knuckleheads to a little chin music, that’s what!
Which is actually entirely different than infringing on their rights. The right to free speech does not hinge on access to the President. You do *get * that, right?
Sorry. Try it now.