Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 70

Thread: Moveon.org Ad

  1. #1
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Moveon.org Ad

    So I'm assuming by now we've all seen the Moveon.org "Gen Betray-us" ad.

    There are quite a few question arising from this ad, and I think an interesting thread can develop from exploring them.

    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?

    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?

    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...scount_fr.html

    Now for the OP. I think this is another example of NYT's clear left leaning bias. I also think this is an excellent display of the left's disgust for anyone who disagrees with them in general and the military specifically. Let the fireworks begin.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Because they agree with it, and anything that is bad for America is good for the Dem's.
    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    It's treasonous. If you are going to accuse a U.S. General of something this serious. You had better have proof.
    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org
    I have to agree with your OP on this. They just hate the U.S. so much that they don't even have a hint of desire to keep integrity or even the illusion of it.
    To serve man.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    This is the reason we are stuck in Iraq - it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans:

    Crude Oil Price Closes Above $80

    Iraq owes us for all the help we have given them.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  4. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Oh snoop I expected a bit more from you. The 'oil hypothesis' is flimsy at best. I agree with your last sentence, but so does Germany, Japan and a dozen other nations.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So I'm assuming by now we've all seen the Moveon.org "Gen Betray-us" ad.

    There are quite a few question arising from this ad, and I think an interesting thread can develop from exploring them.

    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Because Moveon (Geaorge Soros) owns the Democrat party.

    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    Not at all. It is important to see what has become of what used to be a great party. Years ago I was a Democrat.


    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? American Thinker Blog: Moveon.Org Got Huge Discount from the Times for Petraeus Smear Ad
    Because the goal is the same. Assume control no matter what the cost.

    Now for the OP. I think this is another example of NYT's clear left leaning bias. I also think this is an excellent display of the left's disgust for anyone who disagrees with them in general and the military specifically. Let the fireworks begin.
    Clearly, the so called tolerant left is not so tolerant anymore. And it is completely intolerable to have the military actually win this war.

    The war is already lost, someone said here at ODN.

    There are extreme elements of the left who view the West as the root of all evil.
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So I'm assuming by now we've all seen the Moveon.org "Gen Betray-us" ad.

    There are quite a few question arising from this ad, and I think an interesting thread can develop from exploring them.

    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Never bite the hand that feeds you. Both donors to the party and activist voters are very important to their chances in '08.

    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    It's a stupid ad, it's juvenile, it's pointless, but it's their right to make the ad. I think it's out of line and distasteful, but they can do whatever they want with their money.

    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? American Thinker Blog: Moveon.Org Got Huge Discount from the Times for Petraeus Smear Ad
    I think you already answered this.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Because Moveon.org is a good representation of the far left, which has taken control of the Democrats. Furthermore, the Democrat party has used the war in Iraq as the vehicle to take back Washington.

    Good news in Iraq is simply not beneficial to Democrats and any prominent voice which places the situation there in bad light only helps their goals of taking the Whitehouse. Politically, its not wise for them to take a hard stance against this ad as that can be seen as defending and supporting the Surge.

    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    Of course, its nothing but slander and lacks substance.
    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...scount_fr.html
    Need you even ask?
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    I don't actually see the whole "far left taking over the party." The second or first, I don't recall, leading candidate of the Democrats for the '08 nominations is Barack Obama, currently one of the most moderate candidates on the whole line up for '08.


    This whole "far left" talk seems to me to be Conservative maneuver tactics, because they don't have crap to offer.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix
    I don't actually see the whole "far left taking over the party." The second or first, I don't recall, leading candidate of the Democrats for the '08 nominations is Barack Obama, currently one of the most moderate candidates on the whole line up for '08.
    The leading candidate is Hillary Clinton, certainly a far left candidate.

    As for Obama, I believe his position as 2nd is largely due to just plain popularity rather than his politics.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    American Southwest
    Posts
    663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    I don't actually see the whole "far left taking over the party."
    This whole "far left" talk seems to me to be Conservative maneuver tactics, because they don't have crap to offer.

    Enter laugh track.

    And Moveon is just a moderate to left leaning action committee.

    Unbelievable.
    This group, Moveon, along with other grass-root orgs, in 2004, raised over 300 million dollars! I wonder what the they have raised and will raise for the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

    In an e-mail message in 2004 from the head of MoveOn's political action committee to the group's supporters regarding Terry McAuliffe's departure as Democratic National Committee chairman, "Now it's our party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
    Right Wing Pundit: Moveon.org to Democratic Party: "we own it"

    George Soros is God! of the Democrat party.


    “He is just trying to cook the books for the White House,” the ad said. “Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

    “GENERALS LIE, CHILDREN DIE.” Sheehen chants as she was arrested during the report to the Senate. Biden says nothing.

    One protester was dressed as Satan. He wore a face mask to resemble President Bush and carried a sign said: “I’ve got Petraeus by the SOUL.” At the National Press Club on Wednesday.
    Townhall.com:etraeus Responds to MoveOn.org::By Amanda Carpenter

    Tonight, I heard on the news that some of the moderate to left leaning loyal citizens of the U.S. were chanting outside the White House, "Arrest George Bush! Arrest George Bush!"

    Just another day for the moderate to left leaning Democrat, eh?
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." - Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Honestly, I don't think the far left is any more representative of the Democratic party than the far right and/or religious right is of the Republican party. Both are outspoken minorities in each party, but I agree with GP that moveon/the far left hasn't really taken over the Democratic party, but they certainly are amongst the loudest members.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    With my Angel in Aurora
    Posts
    5,722
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Because they agree with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    I wouldn't say it's out of line. A bit risque perhaps, but not out of line.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? American Thinker Blog: Moveon.Org Got Huge Discount from the Times for Petraeus Smear Ad
    I have no idea.
    But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
    1 Peter 3:15-16

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Personally, I find the "Betray Us" word play of the ad's title disgusting and unnecessarily provocative. It distracted attention from the body of the ad, which is relevant to the debate. I'll have more to say about the ad's content in a moment, but I wanted to make clear that I condemn the title.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1. Why have congressional democrats been so reluctant to repudiate the ad?
    Because they agree with the ad's substance. John Kerry, however, called the ad "over the top" and Harry Reid said that it didn't help the anti-war side. Still, I am not pleased by their muted responses for the very reason that it feeds the 6-year Republican "unpatriotic" slander against opponents of this war.

    GOP calls on top Senate Dem to condemn anti-Petraeus ad - CNN.com

    CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker Kerry: MoveOn.org is 'over the top' «


    That said, I note the hypocrisy of conservatives defending Petraeus' good name, while silently accepting administration and blogger attacks on generals and former Bush officials who have criticized this war. When General Shinseki told the nation before the war that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops for a successful post-war occupation, he was ridiculed by the right wingers as a disgruntled officer in the twilight of his career. His motives were openly challenged on radio and television airwaves. I don't remember a newspaper ad, but the message was the same--the general had motives other than US national security at heart. Other generals who questioned Bush policy, like General Abizaid and General Casey, were simply fired--not exactly a noble ending to military careers.

    Think Progress » VIDEO: Myers Claims Shinseki Was Merely ‘Pulling A Number Out’ Of Thin Air

    Or consider the vicious personal attacks on Richard Clarke for making contradictory statements about the war. They painted him as a political hack and a disgruntled employee. The basic thrust of the MoveOn ad is Petraeus's past rosy statements about the war during a time of growing instability--a political operator more than an objective observer. If questioning the integrity of Bush's top intelligence official is fair game, why should one general get a pass?

    Remember when a Republican lawmaker called the decorated war hero John Murtha "a coward" on the floor of the US Congress? Did Bush make a statement about that slander of US war veteran? No, that's permissible conduct.

    And who can forget Ann Coulter's book about Democratic "treason" which, to my knowledge, received little or no condemnation from Republican leaders or Bush himself.

    So let's keep some perspective. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, only that wartime produces extreme rhetoric on both sides, and extreme silence from most politicians and their supporters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2. An assumption of the first question, is this ad out of line?
    The content of the ad, and the back up evidence freely available at the MoveOn.org site, is perfectly in line with debate standards. Focusing on the headline avoids discussing the copy. Here are the major points:

    1) Independent reviews of the surge progress contradict the Petraeus findings:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf
    http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_07...-_08-23-07.pdf
    http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf


    2) Petraeus "cooked" the violence statistics with a bizarre formula, like assassinations only count if the victim is shot in the back of the head, and not the front. Suicide bomb victims don't count.

    washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

    3) Petraeus neglected to mention, or account for, the role of ethnic cleansing in reducing some of the violence. Nor did he explain the cumulative increase in summer violence from one year ago:

    As Sunnis Flee, Shiites Now Dominate Baghdad - Newsweek The War in Iraq - MSNBC.com
    Baghdad crackdown shifting violence? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com


    4) Petraeus talks about "six months" more for results, but fails to explain his past comments that predict a decade-long US military presence in Iraq:

    TheHill.com - Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence

    5) Petraeus has given rose-colored reports before--as he did three years before the Iraq insurgency and sectarian militias ramped up their operations:

    The Washington Monthly

    MoveOn.org's Substantiation: MoveOn.org Political Action: General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? American Thinker Blog: Moveon.Org Got Huge Discount from the Times for Petraeus Smear Ad
    I don't know. But I'll remind you that the NYT employed Judith Miller, the "reporter" responsible for the paper's positive stories about Bush's pre-war WMD claims. It also employs, Thomas Friedman, an early and enthusiastic support of this war. The NYT was no friend to the anti-war movement when it counted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Now for the OP. I think this is another example of NYT's clear left leaning bias. I also think this is an excellent display of the left's disgust for anyone who disagrees with them in general and the military specifically. Let the fireworks begin.
    Over-generalizations. I need not comment further on them.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Personally, I find the "Betray Us" word play of the ad's title disgusting and unnecessarily provocative. It distracted attention from the body of the ad, which is relevant to the debate. I'll have more to say about the ad's content in a moment, but I wanted to make clear that I condemn the title.
    I have no problem with the title. The folks at MoveOn should be free and are free to show their displeasure with individuals and events. That said, I think it is clear how little regard that organization has for this nation's military and those who serve in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Because they agree with the ad's substance. John Kerry, however, called the ad "over the top" and Harry Reid said that it didn't help the anti-war side. Still, I am not pleased by their muted responses for the very reason that it feeds the 6-year Republican "unpatriotic" slander against opponents of this war.
    This is a clever argument. You are claiming dems have not spoken against the ad because they agree with its conclusion, even if they disagree with some of the premises. You then claim you are disappointed because it feeds malicious attacks from Republicans. Perhaps, some of the claims Republicans are making have some validity. Perhaps, this is what really dsipleases you.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    That said, I note the hypocrisy of conservatives defending Petraeus' good name.

    So let's keep some perspective. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, only that wartime produces extreme rhetoric on both sides, and extreme silence from most politicians and their supporters.
    It actually appears you are attempting to make this argument. If not, why bring it up? To concvince us to not get too excited? It seems most Conservatives are not very excited about the MoveOn ad at all. It was pretty much expected as was the Dems reactions. Muted and confused responses. If you wish to debate on whether Republicans are unpatriotic for any of the name calling you mentioned, feel free. It isn't the op of this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    The content of the ad, and the back up evidence freely available at the MoveOn.org site, is perfectly in line with debate standards. Focusing on the headline avoids discussing the copy. Here are the major points:

    1) Independent reviews of the surge progress contradict the Petraeus findings:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf
    http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_07...-_08-23-07.pdf
    http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf


    2) Petraeus "cooked" the violence statistics with a bizarre formula, like assassinations only count if the victim is shot in the back of the head, and not the front. Suicide bomb victims don't count.

    washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

    3) Petraeus neglected to mention, or account for, the role of ethnic cleansing in reducing some of the violence. Nor did he explain the cumulative increase in summer violence from one year ago:

    As Sunnis Flee, Shiites Now Dominate Baghdad - Newsweek The War in Iraq - MSNBC.com
    Baghdad crackdown shifting violence? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com


    4) Petraeus talks about "six months" more for results, but fails to explain his past comments that predict a decade-long US military presence in Iraq:

    TheHill.com - Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence

    5) Petraeus has given rose-colored reports before--as he did three years before the Iraq insurgency and sectarian militias ramped up their operations:

    The Washington Monthly

    MoveOn.org's Substantiation: MoveOn.org Political Action: General Petraeus or General Betray Us?
    Now, this is why I am actually responding. You linked a bunch of stuff. You didn't actually show how any of these links contradict anything Patraeus said to Congress. He didn't paint a rosy picture of Iraq. He didn't claim all was well. He claimed progress, on the security front was being made. This is a point that concurs with the ISF Overall Assessment
    http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf
    A link you provided and that you claim supports MoveOn's position.

    I made similar findings in ther other link you provided.

    Furthermore, the thing that really raised eyebrows was that the NYT subsidized a portion of the ad. Are you going to sit here and claim the NYT has not taken a position and is an objective conveyor of news because they happen to have a couple of Conservatives on staff? Absolutely ridiculous. The NYT should not even be considered a news outlet. It is now just a political rag.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I have no problem with the title.
    Well, others seem to think Petraeus was slimed by the title. I don't think anybody has called for censoring it, certainly not I.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is a clever argument. You are claiming dems have not spoken against the ad because they agree with its conclusion, even if they disagree with some of the premises. You then claim you are disappointed because it feeds malicious attacks from Republicans. Perhaps, some of the claims Republicans are making have some validity. Perhaps, this is what really dsipleases you.
    You mean "Democrats are traitors?" Those claims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It actually appears you are attempting to make this argument. If not, why bring it up?
    Why bring it up? To anticipate the inevitable, which you have nicely demonstrated. Sorry, I meant what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It seems most Conservatives are not very excited about the MoveOn ad at all.
    I'd love to see a poll of Republicans to back up this claim. Listeing to Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, and other conservative radio outlets suggests the ad caused much excitement. Republican presidential candidates like Giuliani and Romney were so "not very excited" that they called on Democrats to denounce the ad. Tony Snow was beside himself. But you're cool as a cucumber like "most conservatives."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If you wish to debate on whether Republicans are unpatriotic for any of the name calling you mentioned, feel free. It isn't the op of this thread.
    Pointing out hypocrisy is relevant to the OP. Your suggestion that I consider Republicans "unpatriotic" is not. I leave those judgments to the gatekeepers of all things patriotic, the Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Now, this is why I am actually responding. You linked a bunch of stuff. You didn't actually show how any of these links contradict anything Patraeus said to Congress. He didn't paint a rosy picture of Iraq. He didn't claim all was well. He claimed progress, on the security front was being made.
    Petraeus's counting methods for "sectarian" and "non-sectaritan" killings are discussed in detail in at least one of the links.

    The omission in Petraeus's report of the massive ethnic cleansing in areas showing lower violence is another.

    Again, you're cherry-picking and ignoring inconvenient arguments.

    In any case, these arguments, whether you agree with them or not, are not evidence of hating the military. Unfortunately, the ad's title undercut that argument unnecessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Furthermore, the thing that really raised eyebrows was that the NYT subsidized a portion of the ad. Are you going to sit here and claim the NYT has not taken a position and is an objective conveyor of news because they happen to have a couple of Conservatives on staff? Absolutely ridiculous. The NYT should not even be considered a news outlet. It is now just a political rag.
    That "political rag" gave space to Michael O'Hanlon's sunny appraisal of Bush's surge, at no charge.

    Furthermore, I don't know the details of the alleged "rate reduction." Neither the NYT or MoveOn has revealed the negotiations. Your uncritical acceptance of third hand blogger information is par for the course for war supporters. Even if true, we don't know the reason. Perhaps MoveOn got a preferred customer discount for frequently hiring ad space in the NYT. It might have involved some other business deal. Who knows. Get back when you learn more about this vital scoop.

    BTW, Friedman and Miller are not conservatives. Yes, even NYT liberals got hoodwinked by the White House.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,391
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Well, others seem to think Petraeus was slimed by the title. I don't think anybody has called for censoring it, certainly not I.
    I think the title was inaccurate. But, why would anyone expect accuracy from the NYT or from MO.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    You mean "Democrats are traitors?" Those claims?
    How about the claims that there is a segment of left-wing democrats (a significant segment) who have acted very near treason. Going to foreign governtments and acting on behalf of the U.S. without the President's approval, bad-mouthing the President on foreign soil, refusing to protect American soveriegnty, et al. are not positive things. These are the behaviors of Pelosi, Kerry, and Reid among others. If this article touches upon those sentiments in a manner that isn't subtle enough for some Dems, it isn't the title that upset them, it is the bluntness of the ad.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Why bring it up? To anticipate the inevitable, which you have nicely demonstrated. Sorry, I meant what I said.
    Inevitable. Only because you brought it up. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    I'd love to see a poll of Republicans to back up this claim. Listeing to Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, and other conservative radio outlets suggests the ad caused much excitement. Republican presidential candidates like Giuliani and Romney were so "not very excited" that they called on Democrats to denounce the ad. Tony Snow was beside himself. But you're cool as a cucumber like "most conservatives."
    It was news and it was reported. I have not heard any of those radio hosts call for demonstrations against the NYT or massive protests to legislators. They reported the event and gave their opinion of the event.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Pointing out hypocrisy is relevant to the OP. Your suggestion that I consider Republicans "unpatriotic" is not. I leave those judgments to the gatekeepers of all things patriotic, the Republicans.
    First, you love to claim hypocrisy is some wonderful premise towards a conclusion. If group X acts hypocrtically, then the behavior of group Y is .....??? I fail to see how group X's behavior alters the value of group Y's behavior. Second, I was not making any suggestions. I merely noted if you wished to debate Republican behavior, do so in the appropriate thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Petraeus's counting methods for "sectarian" and "non-sectaritan" killings are discussed in detail in at least one of the links.

    Again, you're cherry-picking and ignoring inconvenient arguments.
    By all means, provide some quotes and comparisons. It is a bit much to provide a half-dozen links and claim they support your views and then complain I am cherry-picking when I note YOUR links also oppose your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    In any case, these arguments, whether you agree with them or not, are not evidence of hating the military. Unfortunately, the ad's title undercut that argument unnecessarily.
    You keep downplaying the title, as though it meant nothing. In my neck of the woods, behavior means something. If cut in line and knock people down to get to the front of that line, it would be inaccurate for me to later claim that I am a very polite person. MO wrote an add in which they used name-calling and showed abundant dissrspect to a U.S. military general who has devoted his life to defending this country. If that is their view of military men, how can you claim the ad's title is not indicative of their feelings towards the military? What is your evidence for this?

    That "political rag" gave space to Michael O'Hanlon's sunny appraisal of Bush's surge, at no charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by NYT
    [A]s two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. [4]
    Yeah, a real puff peace from a real Conservative Bush supporter. He worked for the DOD, not a political action committe that funds the Democratic party.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Furthermore, I don't know the details of the alleged "rate reduction." Neither the NYT or MoveOn has revealed the negotiations. Your uncritical acceptance of third hand blogger information is par for the course for war supporters. Even if true, we don't know the reason. Perhaps MoveOn got a preferred customer discount for frequently hiring ad space in the NYT. It might have involved some other business deal. Who knows. Get back when you learn more about this vital scoop.
    Sure Manise. When you are done with your rose colored glasses, I would love to sport them around town for a few days. It must be wonderful.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    BTW, Friedman and Miller are not conservatives. Yes, even NYT liberals got hoodwinked by the White House.
    Ok. So your point about the NYT not being a liberal rag is not supported by your own support.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #17
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldPhoenix View Post
    I don't actually see the whole "far left taking over the party."
    This is simply a conservative claim without substance; a talking point in the similar vein of "left wing media bias".

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    Pointing out hypocrisy is relevant to the OP. Your suggestion that I consider Republicans "unpatriotic" is not. I leave those judgments to the gatekeepers of all things patriotic, the Republicans.
    Touche!

  18. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    So, let me get this straight: we have a war we can't afford killing brave American troops, destabilizing a volatile region and killing Iraqi civilians and you guys are upset about an ad?

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    So, let me get this straight: we have a war we can't afford killing brave American troops, destabilizing a volatile region and killing Iraqi civilians and you guys are upset about an ad?
    Yeah Zhav, don't you get it - if it weren't for these peace lovin' war hatin' liberals, we would won this war by now. These types of ads are killing the troops.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Moveon.org Ad

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Oh snoop I expected a bit more from you. The 'oil hypothesis' is flimsy at best.
    While it's certainly not proven, the hypothesis isn't flimsy. It seems perfectly logical for a nation addicted to oil to want to secure its fossil fuel future, regardless of the civilian and military costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    3. Why did the NYT give a substantial discount to Moveon.org (nearly 50 percent)? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...scount_fr.html
    I would give UNICEF a discount if they wanted an ad on my station, because I think they do a great deal of social good. The same goes for the NYT's perspective on the Democratic party.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    This whole "far left" talk seems to me to be Conservative maneuver tactics, because they don't have crap to offer.
    As always. It's actually rather amusing that the conservatives (whose Republican party is actually bought and sold by far right fundamentalists) have the gall to accuse the Democrats (who are quite moderate) of extremism.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    The leading candidate is Hillary Clinton, certainly a far left candidate.
    Um, "far left"? Hillary doesn't even support gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by chad
    As for Obama, I believe his position as 2nd is largely due to just plain popularity rather than his politics.
    On what factual basis do you believe that? A lot of his support comes from readers of "The Audacity of Hope" - which is practically his political manifesto.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd
    MO wrote an add in which they used name-calling and showed abundant dissrspect to a U.S. military general who has devoted his life to defending this country. If that is their view of military men, how can you claim the ad's title is not indicative of their feelings towards the military?
    First of all, if he is guilty of what MO is accusing him of, then he does merit the "abundant disrespect" he received. While many conservatives believe that putting on a uniform means that one is beyond reproach, I think that his actions as a military general - and not merely the fact that he has been a military general for a long time - should be the basis on which we judge him.

    Secondly, why does criticizing one general suddenly make that ad what MO believes about "military men" in general?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    So, let me get this straight: we have a war we can't afford killing brave American troops, destabilizing a volatile region and killing Iraqi civilians and you guys are upset about an ad?
    What else can the right complain about? They're the ones causing the other problems.
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Karl Rove Bizitch Slapped
    By Booger in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: July 12th, 2005, 10:35 AM
  2. Swift Boat versus Moveon.org
    By Zhavric in forum Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 26th, 2004, 08:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •