ABC Network Bans TV Ad Exposing Obamacare

[OCNaturalDoc]

Dear Friends,

I am not suggesting that you donate to the League of American Voters, but simply read that ABC has refused to run and ad that opposed Obama Care. What about free speech in this country?

This is a well known Conservative organization, but don’t they have the right to advertise as others? Send ABC and email and let them know how you feel. Politics may have been this way for a long time, but it seems to me it is reaching an unparalleled level of ugliness and divisiveness to me.



An Urgent Message From the League of American Voters
Dear Friend:

I have some very shocking news.

ABC television has banned our TV ad from airing on its network.

Frankly, I was stunned when I heard the news from our media buyer yesterday.

Right now, our TV ad exposing Obamacare is running in 12 states.

With our success — thanks to your incredible support — we were planning to go national, so we sent the ad to the major networks.

This TV ad simply tells the truth about Obamacare.

This powerful ad features a respected medical doctor — a neurosurgeon, in fact — who warns that Obamacare will decimate healthcare for seniors and others in need of life-saving medical procedures.

As Dr. Cuffe explains in the ad, if Obama gets his way and adds 50 million new patients to the government system, it inevitably will lead to a single payor system, rationing of healthcare procedures and vital medicines for the elderly.

Dr. Cuffe says universal healthcare has led to this same situation in Canada andEngland.

You can see Dr. Cuffe and donate to help air this ad —

We know why ABC is so afraid of the League's TV ad. It knows the message resonates with the American people.

This is the same network that aired an infomercial for the Obama plan directly from the White House.

Clearly, ABC knows seniors will not be hoodwinked by Obama when they learn the truth.

Despite ABC's brazen act of censorship, we need to continue to run this ad on other stations across the nation and on major networks.

Time is very short, so we really need your help.

Please Go Here Now to Support This Ad.

We CAN make a huge difference. The ABC decision proves we are on the right track.

Please help us today!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bob Adams
Executive Director

[JMcAul]

For the sarcasm impaired, if a first grader could figure out that having insurance does not effect how often I get sick, then the question itself is nothing but noise. If that's the point you think I proved, then we're in agreement.
(And no, that's NOT the point I think you proved. The point that I KNOW you proved is the one about people who think like you do being ELITIST, CONDESCENDING and SNOBBISH. A point which your "1st grader" crack proves very clearly for all honest readers of this blog to clearly see.)

[JMcAul]

Pacis says: For the sarcasm impaired, if a first grader could figure out that having insurance does not effect how often I get sick, then the question itself is nothing but noise. If that's the point you think I proved, then we're in agreement.

Again, thank you for proving ANOTHER of my points (I just haven't had the time to get back to it until now, gotta work for my food, my home and my healthcare, you know!) I am not arguing that having health insurance will effect how often one gets SICK, it WILL however effect how often one goes to the doctor for every cut, scrape, sneeze and sniffle. The hypochondriacs among us (and there are plenty) who find themselves with new "free" (haha, I laugh as I write it) health care will feel they have hit the jackpot and will use and abuse the existing medical establishment accordingly. People who have nothing to lose (in terms of deductibles, co-pays or even fee for service) by going to the doctor will quite simply go much more often than they would if they knew they were going to have to pony up a bit of cash.

Pacis, if you cannot figure this one out you are either very poorly educated or you are being dishonest.

[JMcAul]

ZenDog, the public recourse is for each individual to assume responsibility to educate themselves and do their own due diligence, rather than depending on someone else (say the Federal government, through "speech control" legislation) to do their thinking for them.

This way, if you feel someone is "parroting" a corporate theme of "organized deception", you will be able to come to the table armed with FACTS to refute that corporate line (again your words, not mine.) Of course, if you are arguing from a position of sheer emotionalism and do not have the support of the facts, your argument will not go very far. It is called civilized debate.

[OCNaturalDoc]

hey john,
here's the fox news report...they reported it today:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/27/abc-nbc-refuse-air-advertisement-critical-obamas-health-care-plan/

[ZenDog]

Ya know, I'm all for free speech. I am. REally. I live by it. What I truly do abhor is organized deception. Organized deception intended to secure the public in service to the needs of corporate enterprise is an abomination.

When I see someone like you come along, all deluded and chit, paroting the corporate theme, I go Hm. So that's where we are.

As for the rest, we used to call it FALSE ADVERTISING. but I guess Reagan deregulated that too.

You know what happens when we design an intersection that is inherently dangerous, don't you? People get killed. When enough people get killed then we find the resources to redesign the intersection.

I think advertising and political lobbieing are like that. There are design flaws in the system. No one knows what to do, because hey, is it free speech or not? Clearly it isn't when it is ORGANIZED DECEPTION. And like I said, the public used to have some sort of recourse.

Well. The solution is rather obvious, isn't it?

let the killing begin . . .

[OCNaturalDoc]

perfectly said, jm.

[JMcAul]

"Comment by Pacis Dream:
...To avoid sounding elitist, I will use 1st grade arithmetic to provide an illustration,"...

The rank condescension of your comment makes my point about elitist snobbery far better than I ever could Pacis. Thank you for proving my point yourself (unintentional as it may have been on your part.)

[Nick Danger]

you HAVE NOT ADDRESSED the central question of this ad and that is...

That might be the question you wish to discuss but that was not the one that was actually posted.

"I am not suggesting that you donate to the League of American Voters, but simply read that ABC has refused to run and ad that opposed Obama Care. What about free speech in this country?"

Is what was written and the question posited. It's also what was answered. The ad, itself, was germane only insofar as it supposedly represented a pov that the network allegedly rejected.

In point of fact, no such evidence exists that they actually did.

It seems to me if you want to discuss the topic, there are a number of other places here that you can do this. No need to hijack another topic.

[JMcAul]

To all the people in this thread who want to attack the credibility of this ad: you HAVE NOT ADDRESSED the central question of this ad and that is: "How can Obama's healthcare plan add 50 million patients without increasing the number of doctors AND AVOID RATIONING?" Well? regardless of how "polished, professional or elite" this ad may or may not be, the question is still begging to be answered.

Nevermind the fact that this supposedly hyped ad and the group sponsoring it still quote CREDIBLE, MAINSTREAM sources for their information.

OCDoc, you are getting your political baptism by fire. It's normal. Anytime someone comes out against the statist machine expect them to try and demoralize you through ridicule of the type clearly on display in this discussion. You raised a very good question and no amount of ridicule or liberal snobbery (another hallmark of the elitist left) can change the fact.

What you have encountered here is the typical liberal tactic when a valid argument against one of their causes is raised: instead of ADDRESSING THE ISSUE head on with facts...attack the messenger. It is their tactic that has been used for decades against conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, all of those who believe and stand for individual liberties and who resist the constantly growing and metastasizing, encroaching welfare state.

What's got them on the run now, is the right is no longer going to be intimidated by their tactics. As has been clearly expressed in another current discussion here on TBD: one can only cry "wolf" (in this case "healthcare crisis") so many times before people start ignoring you.

[John Turberville]

I'm sure FOX News would carry it.