Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Remember that whole MoveOn Hitler ad flap? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Remember that whole MoveOn Hitler ad flap?
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If not, here's a summation: MoveOn threw a contest to pick a TV spot, opening it up to basically anyone in the U.S. with a camcorder and a loathing for George Bush. They received hundreds of ads, screening them for technical proficiency, factual inaccuracy, and suitability for broadcast (i.e. vulgarity and the like), and put the survivors of that culling on their website so their members could vote on the faves. Two or three of the survivors were not exactly tasteful, basically paranoid screeds comparing Bush to Hitler and the like. They weren't popular with the MoveOn voters, and would have died in obscurity if some conservatives hadn't noticed them on the site and used their presence -- rather unfairly, I thought, since MoveOn was fairly clearly about the criteria by which the films were "vetted" for the contest -- to claim that MoveOn was full of hateful, spiteful people who liked to go around yelling "fascist" and making nasty insinuations.

By comparison, the Republican Party of Kentucky was -- until their stock just recently ran out, and one principled member objected to ordering more -- happy to sell people bumper stickers that said, in no uncertain terms, that Kerry was the pawn of Osama bin Laden. Here's the story:

quote:

Osama emerges -- on Kentucky bumpers

Bumper stickers bearing the slogan "Kerry is bin Laden's Man. Bush is Mine" are selling like hotcakes in Kentucky – local Republicans actually sold out their stash. The Democrat-morphing-into-bin-Laden ad strategy has been a Republican staple in several elections since 9/11, so this kind of rhetoric in the general election isn't a shock But it's still upsetting and uncalled for, and at least one Kentucky Republican recognizes that:

"Kentucky Rep. Anne Northup said she found out about the stickers over the weekend and doesn't want any more distributed. 'What campaigns need to center on, debates need to center on and the party needs to focus on are ideas,' she said."

"Jefferson County GOP chairman Jack Richardson IV said the stickers were so popular that GOP headquarters ran out Friday. He won't distribute more, but is trying to locate their source for those who want them. 'I believe in the question this bumper sticker raises,' Richardson said. Bill Garmer, chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, said the sticker equates a decorated Vietnam veteran with Osama bin Laden – 'one of the greatest enemies of the United States. It goes way over the line,' he said."

"A spokesman for the Kerry campaign previously called on GOP lawmakers to condemn the sticker, saying it was a 'hateful and mean-spirited smear campaign.'"


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michael Moore is one of the leaders of Moveon.org, and Moore has published at least one book comparing Bush to Hitler. Therefore the "claim" that MoveOn contains hateful, spiteful people who like to go around yelling "fascist" and making nasty insinuations, is true on its face. This type of propaganda is part of Moveon.org's guiding philosphy, regardless if they pretend to back off a specific ad when it proves to be unpopular.

Moveon.org is what the Tax lawyers call a 527, i.e. one of the new "outlets" for soft money, running through the loopholes of the campaign finance reform. It only still exists because the FEC decided in May not to enforce the new law before the 2004 election. Since that May FEC decision, Republican-leaning 527s have sprung up in response -- previously the Republicans, dispite their other failings, had the decency to seek a remedy at law rather than follow suit and exploit the loophole. Now that the FEC has decided to let this ride for this election, there will be Republicans that are pulling stunts just as slimy as the ones we've seen from Moveon.org. Get used to it, Tom. If you don't like the new game, then tell it to your Moveon.org friends who set the rules for this election.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, Pete, Moore is not a leader of MoveOn - they supported his film by organizing their members to go out and see it, but he's in no way affiliated with them, didn't found it, doesn't lead it.

Moore may have said that about Bush (source please?), but again, he's not affiliated with MoveOn.

And I've already posted about this on this thread - MoveOn handled the Hitler situation early on in the controversy, and I link to their response on this thread.

Bush's camp revived it on their own website, which was a pretty dumb move, if you've seen what they did with it.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, out of curiosity, why is anything you just said relevant?

Tom was comparing a specific incident with a specific incident and citing hypocracy by the Republicans.

Frankly, I agree with Tom's point about the hypocracy. Sure, it may not have been these particular Republicans condemning MoveOn.org for having questionable content on its site, but, as representatives of a Republican party that comdemned the Hitler comparissons, they should be held up to the standard of the National party. I mean, it's not like this was an advocacy group that was spreading these bumper stickers; it was the Republican Party of Kentucky!

Oh, and the chairman's response was gold:
"believe in the question this bumper sticker raises,' Richardson [Jefferson County GOP chairman Jack Richardson IV ] said."

Well, evidently some Americans believe in the "question" raised by comparing Bush to Hitler. So is it cool to advertise that?

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michael Moore was working with Moveon.org since before F911 hit Cannes.

Hell, man, Moore was one of the bleeding JUDGES for the ad competition. Look it up, 'Leez.

Ivan -- so if one group of Republicans condemns MoveOn.org, while another group of Republicans tries to emulate them, that is hypocrisy?

It's hypocrisy to protest what seems to be a rule violation, and then, when the FEC says it's OK for this election, to emulate the behavior that you had protested? Sounds more to me like an honest attempt to operate within the rules of the game.

Face it, Ivan -- American "Hypocracy" -- government by hypocrite -- is quite bipartisan. There's nothing particularly Democratic or Republican about it.

One piece of Kerry "Hypocracy" is acting like opposing same sex marriage is "politicaly motivated," while promoting it, or pretending to abstain from the question, is not "politically motivated."

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MoveOn does not in any capacity represent the Democratic Party.

However, the Republican Party of Kentucky, I believe, represents the Republican Party to some extent.

No comparison, Pete.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, yeah, Pete - he was a judge for their competition.

He's not a founder of the organization, he's not one of their leaders.

Just as those who judge the Miss America contest are not members of the Miss America Association, which runs the contest.

Splitting hairs you may say, but there IS a difference.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Besides, Pete, the conservative pundits were criticizing the morality of comparing Bush to Hitler, not the legality.

They condemned the notion that you should compare an American leader to an international villian and murderer. And they condemned Democrats in general (because, after all, Moveon represents Democrats) for allowing such behavior. Many insinuated that belonging to a party that condones such actions was immoral.

So what does that say about Republicans, now that an official arm of the Republican party has done the same thing? Shouldn't we hold Republicans to the same standards that the pundits held Democrats?

Which means, of course, that the only moral thing to do in November is to vote Green. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that we can all agree that both the ad and bumper sticker were distasteful, that there are plenty of rude liberals and conservatives, and that one slice of people can not represent the entirety of the liberal or conservative philosophy, or the republican or democratic parties. Yahoos are everywhere, in our neighborhoods, in our families, at work. All you can do is roll your eyes and say "he's a distant cousin".
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So apparently the republican parties in kentucky and texas are distant cousins to the rest of the party...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I think that we can all agree that both the ad and bumper sticker were distasteful, that there are plenty of rude liberals and conservatives, and that one slice of people can not represent the entirety of the liberal or conservative philosophy, or the republican or democratic parties. Yahoos are everywhere, in our neighborhoods, in our families, at work. All you can do is roll your eyes and say "he's a distant cousin"."
I think that what you say is true. The way certain chapters of the Republican party operate can sometimes be quite different from one place to another. At least with the RNC, when certain campaigns are really in trouble or are simply not doing things right, the national headquarters will send people from their employ over to whatever campaign is having problems, in order to restore order and perspective to the campaign.

This sort of thing happened in Scott McCallum's campaign and also in Sam Katz's campaign in Philly. In fact, Katz's campaign had many democrats and pro-union folks volunteering because they so badly wanted John Street run out of office.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Michael Moore was working with Moveon.org since before F911 hit Cannes."

Pete, as a member of MoveOn, I should point out that Moore is neither a leader nor a particularly influential member. He was willing to let the group promote his film, and -- as a prominent liberal firebrand -- has been used for publicity (along with people like Garofolo). If he ever BECOMES a leader of the organization, which I doubt will ever happen, I will immediately leave it.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it were the Kentucky Democrats saying the same about Bush, and Republicans were screaming that it showed that all Democrats were hypocrites, I'd be making the same argument.

Kentucky is not the whole nation. Moveon.org on the other hand is the embodiment of what used to be Democratic soft money. Kerry doesn't have a good leash on them, but he is controlled by the same interests that fund Moveon.org

I have yet to see an argument that shows that Bush is controlled by Kentucky Republicans, or that the Kentucky Republican party is somehow representative of the whole.

quote:
Pete, as a member of MoveOn, I should point out that Moore is neither a leader nor a particularly influential member. He was willing to let the group promote his film, and -- as a prominent liberal firebrand -- has been used for publicity (along with people like Garofolo).
Not influential? LoL Tom, have you read your own organization's propaganda? My wife is always bringing it to me to sway me to Kerry. Most of the stuff she's showed me traces back to one silly Moore book or another.

quote:
If he ever BECOMES a leader of the organization, which I doubt will ever happen, I will immediately leave it.
I do respect that. But realize that for good or for bad, that Moore is publically linked with Moveon.org, and if your organization does not want to disgrace itself by that association, they'd better disconnect soon. And a Moveon.org disgrace has the potential to bring down Kerry with it.

Michael Moore was indispensable in helping GWB win the election over Gore in 2000. It would be cosmically funny if he repeated that unintended favor...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Moveon.org on the other hand is the embodiment of what used to be Democratic soft money."

Really? As someone who's been a member since it was founded, this comes as a surprise. Why do you make that assertion?

Are you actually familiar with its history, Pete, and its real leadership?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you actually familiar with its history, Pete, and its real leadership?
Clearly not, Tom.

http://www.moveon.org/about/

Who started MoveOn?
MoveOn was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOnPAC's Executive Director (see www.moveonpac.org).

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your wife is a wise woman, Pete.

Moore's too fringe for moveon generally. The group is progressive, but hardly rah-rah Democrat--don't forget the "censure" part of the name.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am sure to the left Moveon.org is a very moderate group. Asking people to percieve themselves as anything other than moderate is the same as asking journalists what their biases are. You just get a blank stare.

Then again some people think the NAACP is really independent and does not support anyone party.

Can you ask how many republican initiatives moveon.org has promoted?

Going to their website today, here are the headlines:

quote:
Taking on Fox

Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, Fox News Channel turns Republican talking points into news headlines. Now "Uncovered" director Robert Greenwald — working with a group of Fox-monitoring MoveOn members — has put together a documentary film called Outfoxed that exposes Fox for what it is: partisan spin, not news.

quote:
United, not Divided

In a major victory for the civil rights of all Americans, the Senate has decisively rejected President Bush’s proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have denied marriage equality to same-sex couples.

quote:
Al Gore: The Bush Administration is Destroying Democracy


quote:
Fire Rumsfeld: View our new TV ad



quote:
Al Gore Speaks on Global Warming and the Environment
quote:
Al Gore Speaks on Fear: Its Political Uses and Abuses
Progressive is a vague term. Generally progressive groups tend to focus on varying issues that are, well, progressive. Moveon.org seems to be focused on throwing out the present administration and not putting forth a "progressive" agenda.

Who generally supports moveon.org?

quote:
In late 2003, Moveon.org became the subject of controversy when it was discovered that websites outside the United States had been set up for non-US citizens to make donations to MoveOn for the explicit purpose of defeating Bush in the 2004 presidential elections. Under U.S. law, a presidential campaign cannot legally accept foreign donations (although the U.S. government has itself given money to support electoral candidates that it favors in other countries, such as Nicaragua). While MoveOn is not bound by this restriction, it nonetheless chose not to accept any more funds from overseas to avoid the perception of impropriety. It has not disclosed how much money it received from overseas before shutting these avenues down.

quote:
According to the March 10, 2004, Washington Post, "The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros and his wife, Susan Weber Soros, who gave $5 million to America Coming Together (ACT) and $1.46 million to MoveOn.org; Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $3 million to ACT and $500,000 to MoveOn; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee." [17] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44513-2004Mar9_2.html)

from disinfopedia
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was unaware of what Moveon.org WAS before Whoros and crowd bought it and basically turned it into a 527.

What Moveon.org was before the McCaine Fingold reforms banned Soft Money (which as the Supreme Court predicted, would find an "outlet"), is not necessarily connected to what Moveon.org is. I do know that the stuff my wife showed me was incredibly weak Moore-ish argument that fell apart. Money corrupts, and soft money corrupts softly [Big Grin]

Given what my wife said about kwaanza last year, Zyne, I'm surprised that you'd acknowledge her wisdom [Wink]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, MoveOn has currently devoted its energies to crushing Bush and, in response to Fox News' suit, humiliating Fox News. As a consequence, you'll find most of its energy pointed at those two targets. In other words, it's OPENLY an anti-Bush organization. That does not mean, however, that it's an excessively liberal organization.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it were the Kentucky Democrats saying the same about Bush, and Republicans were screaming that it showed that all Democrats were hypocrites, I'd be making the same argument.

Kentucky is not the whole nation. Moveon.org on the other hand is the embodiment of what used to be Democratic soft money. Kerry doesn't have a good leash on them, but he is controlled by the same interests that fund Moveon.org.

Pete, I believe your reasoning is blurred here. You're saying that an unofficial organization that is somewhat aligned with the Democratic party is far more representative of Democrats than the official of the Republican party in Kentucky is representative of Republicans???

That would be like saying that the National Rifle Association is far more representative of our government than the Bureau of Alcohol and Tabacco. An organization that tries to influence the government is a much better indicator of the government than an actual arm of the government??

The most you can say is that Moveon is as representatives as the Kentucky arm of the Republican party. But to say it is more so seems to me to be delving into partisan denial.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Are you saying that Moveon.org is moderate?

If so do you believe that groups led by liberals like Soros are considered moderate? I think that most people would disagree with you. Linda Pritzker of the Hyatt family fortune is to the left of Barbara Steisand. They are liberal and their sources are liberal. I think saying they're not liberal, either based on their sources or actions is a little less than realistic given the evidence.

Being anti Bush does not make you liberal (I wonder how you as a liberal define the difference between excessively liberal and liberal?) however judging by the sources of funds from rich liberal left leaning democrats and their organizations I would say that Moveon.org is very much left leaning and liberal.

Just wondering though, what evidence do you have that Moveon.org is moderate of late? Are they supporting a number of moderate republicans? Are they strengthening the moderate wing of the republican party? Aren't moderate democrats a bit upset by Moveon.org's activities? Just where does your view of moderation apply in those cases?

Would you consider the NAACP equally neutral?

I just don't see any proof of your view. Maybe you can present some to us so that we can understand your point on this?

[ July 22, 2004, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, you are confusing being moderate with supporting both parties. This is not necessarily the case.

MoveOn is a fiercely and rather proudly partisan organization nowadays, although that's a recent development which I consider to be an unfortunate consequence of their fairly successful "elect the next president" donation/election a year or so back. That does not mean, however, that it's a markedly liberal organization, as its ONLY agenda at the moment is the removal of Bush from power.

Since many liberals share this goal, many liberals donate to MoveOn; since conservatives are less inclined to agree, fewer conservatives donate.

MoveOn is not a PAC. It is not an organization founded on a narrow ideology, and has no agenda it wishes to push through government. It wishes to see Bush defeated -- that's all.

If that's a LIBERAL goal, then it's liberal. I suspect it isn't, however.

-------

As a side note, I'd personally prefer it if MoveOn returned to its bipartisan, issue-based roots. After Bush loses, I imagine that it will.

(Note that if you can judge an organization's leanings by its donors alone, Ralph Nader is the favorite son of, inexplicably, Texas oil barons.)

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SpencerHR
Member
Member # 1401

 - posted      Profile for SpencerHR   Email SpencerHR   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Getting back to the main topic of the thread, I thought the bumper sticker meant simply that Bin Laden would rather have Kerry, elected, not that the two were somehow in league. Kind of a "Kerry is who the terrorists would vote for, so don't vote for him!" type of thing. But that's just how it struck me.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, those bipartisan roots have long ago been culled. Given the amounts of "continued" financial support, Moveon.org does not represent any type of centrist or moderate view.

I am not confusing moderate with supporting both parties, but it appears you confuse moderate with only one party. I think we can agree there are moderates in both parties. A truly bipartisan group would seek to strengthen both parties moderate stances, if that group were moderate and bipartisan. Moveon.org is neither nor does it pretend to be.

If its goal were simply the removal of Bush, then it is difficult to understand its support for so many other left wing candidates in races that have no impact on the presidential race.

Those people include Scott Baesler a democrat of Kentucky, Linda Chapman a candidate in FL, Rush Holt, a democrat in NJ and basically any other liberal running. Defacto its a liberal non bipartisan organization.

quote:
MoveOn has created pressure within the Democratic Party for what the Washington Post calls "a vigorously liberal agenda" that goes "beyond simple opposition to the Bush administration." Boyd rejects the advice of "centrists" such as the Democratic Leadership Council who argue that "Democrats must moderate their positions on war, taxes, universal health care and other key issues." Speaking in June 2003 at a "Take Back America" conference, MoveOn's Wes Boyd declared, "The primary way to build trust is to consistently fight for things that people care about." Grassroots America is ready to support a liberal agenda, he said, if only "someone will get out and lead. ... Every time we did something, every time we showed leadership, our membership went up." [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14925-2003Jun4)

I would say that Moveon.orgs own leadership disagrees with your view of their lack of ideology.


Your view of one time republican political shennanigans with Nader is a little disengenuous wouldn't you say? No one has suggested that we view an organization by its donations alone. The difference between Nader and Moveon.org is fairly obvious to most of us(and I suspect you too), Nader recieves some support in order to undermine the democratic candidates. I don't agree with the tactics but I understand them as something completely different from the long term financial commitment that moveon.org has recieved for years (not simply an election cycle).

So you see, your comparison bears no real resemblence what is actually going on.

So what do we have:

1-Moveon.org has an admitted liberal ideology.

2-A big part of that ideology is to defeat Bush.

3-The organization supports liberal democrats.

4-The organization is mainly funded by extremely rish liberal democrats.

5-It has recieved such support prior to the Bush election.

So what makes you think it is moderate. You already admit it is not bipartisan, so there must be some ideology if follows to choose democrats over republicans. That ideology is not moderate, it is liberal as described by its leaders.

Is there anything I have missed?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You've missed almost everything, Ron. Let me break down your points for you:

"1-Moveon.org has an admitted liberal ideology."

Except that it doesn't. You'll notice that the word "liberal" in your quote above was inserted by the narrator, not used by Boyd. Moreover, MoveOn's own stances are determined by popular vote among its membership and, at the moment, do NOT include any ideological statements. MoveOn is not opposed to any candidate based on, for example, support for the war in Iraq, support for abortion, etc.

"2-A big part of that ideology is to defeat Bush."

The ONLY part of that ideology is to defeat Bush. However, as I have pointed out before, being anti-Republican is NOT the same thing as being liberal. MoveOn is opposed to the Republican establishment, and puts its money in opposition to that establishment. That does not, however, make it "liberal."

"3-The organization supports liberal democrats."

The organization supports any Democrat running against a Republican. Which would be almost all of 'em.

"4-The organization is mainly funded by extremely rish liberal democrats."

This is untrue. The organization is MAINLY funded by individual donors, but the largest single donor is a prominent rich liberal who's vowed to defeat Bush -- George Soros, the liberal equivalent of Richard Schaife.

"5-It has recieved such support prior to the Bush election."

Soros' first donations occurred back during the original "censure and move on" movement that birthed the organization, if that's what you mean. He donated at the time, it appears, because he strongly agreed with the cause.

So where, again, is any evidence of being "liberal?" You haven't presented any, so far.

--------

And hey, while we're at it, how do you feel about those bumper stickers? Would you buy one?

[ July 22, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom Davidson:
quote:
MoveOn is not a PAC. It is not an organization founded on a narrow ideology, and has no agenda it wishes to push through government. It wishes to see Bush defeated -- that's all.

If that's a LIBERAL goal, then it's liberal. I suspect it isn't, however.

Tom, sounds like we agree. MoveOn is not a PAC; it's a 527. It's no longer based on political principle; it's abandoned its 1990s founding agenda and has bought into (or been bought by) the Moore/Soros narrow agenda of defeating GWB.


WS:
quote:
You're saying that an unofficial organization that is somewhat aligned with the Democratic party is far more representative of Democrats than the official of the Republican party in Kentucky is representative of Republicans???
That's right, WS. My assertion would be rediculous if our national parties were based in grass roots, but your incredulity is naive, given the fact that we all know that the national parties are about purse strings and money.

quote:
That would be like saying that the National Rifle Association is far more representative of our government than the Bureau of Alcohol and Tabacco.
If we use "represent" to refer to official capacity, the statement would be ludicrous, I agree.

But since I am talking about representative interests and agenda, it's not such a rediculous idea. Does a lobbying org set the agenda, or does an institution of government set the agenda?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only there's another difference: The GOP of Kentucky was actually responsible for producing the stickers, AND has refused to disown them. MoveOn neither produced the Hitler ad, and it removed it ASAP. Just a teensy difference there.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But since I am talking about representative interests and agenda, it's not such a rediculous idea. Does a lobbying org set the agenda, or does an institution of government set the agenda?
The lobbying organization attempts to set the agenda. It's success varies.

The institution of government reflects the agenda. It is set by the government.

The analogy breaks down here, of course, since the Republican party is not strictly a government organization. But the principle is the same:

A lobbying organization tries to influence the central organization, be it the government or the Democratic party. But the central organization has limited, if any, influence on the lobbying organization.

The institution of government is influenced by the central organization, be it an arm of the government or a local Republican party organization. It has limited, if any influence on the central organization.

So the central Republican party has more responsibility for what the Kentucky Republican party does than the Democratic party has for what the Moveon lobbying group does. Because the central Republican party influences what the Kentucky Republican party does far more than the central Democratic party influences Moveon.

You would expect that the Kentucky Republican Party is at least as much in line with the central Republican Party as Movon is with the central Democratic Party. To say that the Kentucky Republican Party is less in line with the Republican Party than Moveon is with the Democratic party seems non-sensical to me.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"has bought into (or been bought by) the Moore/Soros narrow agenda of defeating GWB"

You know, Moore has hitched his train to MoveOn, rather than the other way around. We voted on that paricular agenda WELL before he started talking about it being his, as well. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Moveon.org has an admitted liberal ideology."

Except that it doesn't. You'll notice that the word "liberal" in your quote above was inserted by the narrator, not used by Boyd. Moreover, MoveOn's own stances are determined by popular vote among its membership and, at the moment, do NOT include any ideological statements. MoveOn is not opposed to any candidate based on, for example, support for the war in Iraq, support for abortion, etc.

So if an antisemitic person doesn't use the word race, hes not a racist? Sorry, but that is too much like semantics for me Tom. The ideological statements are liberal. I suppose you are trying to say that Wes Boyd is not a liberal and does not support liberal causes? Very funny. Wes Boyd stiles himself a liberal and chooses his support for "liberals". Moveon.org is liberal and supports liberals, I haven't seen one moderate supported by them, while liberals are. If you don't think this reflects a liberal ideology then I suppose you won't be convinced regardless of the evidence placed before you. It seems pretty obvious to everyone else, even if you want to deny it.

quote:
"2-A big part of that ideology is to defeat Bush."

The ONLY part of that ideology is to defeat Bush. However, as I have pointed out before, being anti-Republican is NOT the same thing as being liberal. MoveOn is opposed to the Republican establishment, and puts its money in opposition to that establishment. That does not, however, make it "liberal."

Dissappointing really Tom. Can you tell me how supporting other liberals defeats Bush? Or is it a general push on those who purport liberal agendas. Tom you should, of all people know that supporting people outside of the Bush presidential election is really an effort to support liberals going into the political arena (certainly no moderates have been supported, I haven't seen any McCain ads for VP from Moveon.org have you? Or even McCain for president either).

quote:
"3-The organization supports liberal democrats."

The organization supports any Democrat running against a Republican. Which would be almost all of 'em.

So as you see, no moderates (there goes your theory) are supported. Only liberal democrats who follow an "ideology". Seems you missed that one too.

quote:
4-The organization is mainly funded by extremely rish liberal democrats."

This is untrue. The organization is MAINLY funded by individual donors, but the largest single donor is a prominent rich liberal who's vowed to defeat Bush -- George Soros, the liberal equivalent of Richard Schaife.

Do you have any numbers? I maintain that the majority of their funding is fairly well heeled. We know that people like Soros and of course foriegn nationals spend or have spent tons of money to support Moveon.org. I doubt there is too much mom and pop financing involved, but would welcome the information if you can provide something beyond opinion.

quote:
5-It has recieved such support prior to the Bush election."

Soros' first donations occurred back during the original "censure and move on" movement that birthed the organization, if that's what you mean. He donated at the time, it appears, because he strongly agreed with the cause.

In other words your information was incorrect and they did recieve funds, liberal funds, prior to Bush's election. Kind of undermines your point doesn't it?

quote:
And hey, while we're at it, how do you feel about those bumper stickers? Would you buy one?

Do you mean, do I think Kerry will pull out of Iraq? Isn't that the same goal that Usama bin Laden has? Then maybe Afghanistan? Do Kerry's and Usama bin Laden's goals coincide? I guess you would have to look at the evidence.

I personally don't like bumper stickers since there is no place to put them on my bicycle (which is my primary mode of transportation during the week, it keeps the weight down).

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, what the hell is a "liberal fund," and how does the fact that someone donated to an organization because they liked its message mean that the organization, from that moment, has become beholden to that person's agenda? For that matter, how does the fact that MoveOn -- whose stated goal is to defeat and humiliate the Bush Administration -- will donate funds to any Democrat in a tighr race against a Republican mean that they are "liberal," or that they somehow only support "liberal" Democrats who endorse their "ideology?"

You appear to confuse the word "liberal" with the phrase "anti-Republican." I submit that this would be easier for you to understand if you recognized that the terms are not synonymous. You keep missing the point. MoveOn is an organization currently dedicated to breaking the Republican hold on the federal government. It is NOT, however, particularly liberal; it is merely anti-Republican.

I have trouble following your logic throughout this thread, Ron, because it never seems like you're responding to the things I've actually written but are instead arguing in a parallel universe with some weird liberal version of yourself. Is it impossible for you to understand very basic English? Am I going to have to start speaking in single syllables so you understand me, or are you being DELIBERATELY obtuse?

Look, if you're just farting around and don't intend to read what I'm writing, or are pretending to be clueless so that you don't have to admit to being staggeringly wrong in public, just tell me so I won't waste my time on the blank wall you present. But if you really aren't understanding what I'm saying, let me know and I'll break it down with smaller words.

By the way, nice way to dodge the actual point of the thread. I found your whole bicycle quip absolutely charming, and almost as irrelevant as you intended. I hope no one's distracted by that desperate dodge, though, except perhaps to note that you, like the Kentucky Republicans, apparently approve of the "important message" on that bumper sticker.

Enjoy your Hitler while he lasts, eh? *covers hands with mouth* Oh, wait. Is that unfair? [Wink] j/k

[ July 22, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom you seem to be trying to tell us that an organization without a liberal agenda will still recieve heavy backing from liberals, and not just during an election season, but for years! Wow. Talk about stretching it.

If you look at it, your snide remarks and hyperbole aside, I think you will conclude, or most reasonable people will conclude at least, that Moveon.org is a liberal organization and its stated goals are liberal and not just the ouster of Bush, but also the progression of a liberal agenda by promoting liberal democrats. To make such decisions (ie for liberal democrats versus moderates in general) one must have certain biases regarding a liberal agenda. Tom, your asking us to believe that the liberal leadership, with liberal backing, and promoting liberal politicians is not liberal! I don't even think Michael Moore would go that far!

I think we can dispense with the idea that Moveon.org is moderate, its not. Its certainly not conservative and it supports those who seek a liberal agenda. Now the logic may be hard for you to follow, as you have admitted already, but if you think about it, its fairly simple and the best you have shown us so far is to try to play a game of semantics in which you have no real hard facts. Go to the websites indicated to see that everything about them is very liberal. So please Tom, lets at least have an honest discussion about this rather than try to hide behind some phrase or another. It might also help if you keep the insults to a minimum, maybe then you will be able to exercise a stronger dialogue concerning the question of whether or not Moveon.org is liberal. I keep remembering the Marx brothers when you use the semantics ploy, you remember the joke stating "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes." I don't think anyone really believes that Moveon.org is either moderate or that it is somehow not liberal. I think you are the only person in the entire media spectrum that I know of that does not consider Moveon.org as being liberal. Your argument seems centered more on the semantics rather than the facts presented. Maybe its your own universe that you pull your opinions from, but take a deep breath and think about it. If you eliminate the moderate and the conservative, what is left? If your key backers are liberals, what does that say about your agenda? If the media, both those who agree with your organization and those who disagree with you consider you a liberal, what does that say about your ideology and characteristics?

Of course you might answer in that far off universe, (why it means I am a moderate). "Beep", wrong answer Hans". Your a liberal.

So Tom, I am not farting around, though the smell here might be one that could be cleared up with a bit of honesty and less semantic dodges. I don't want to make this (as you seem to be trying to) a Tom against Ron thing. I just find it interesting to see what convoluted logic or semantic dissembling you present to somehow show the rest of the world that Moveon.org is somehow not liberal.

You should try riding a bicycle by the way, it does wonders for your health.

[ July 22, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WS -- I agree that it doesn't make sense, but that is how it works. As you astutely observed, a local chapter of a political party is not a branch of the government. And the principle is not the same. The general party cannot control what a local chapter does, any more than the Republicans could keep Jeffords from defecting. Hell, man, the Kentucky chapter could endorse Buchanon for president if they wanted to.

What I am trying to say is that Moveon.org appears to be owned by the same interests and agenda as that which owns the Kerry campaign. For example, John Kerry's campaign really hasn't been about anything other than displacing Bush.

Which reminds me, I just talked my wife into voting for Bush. Guess what finally did the trick? I showed her this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5451320/

Here's what Bush said:

quote:
TAMPA, Fla. - President Bush on Friday urged aggressive law enforcement to combat the crime of human trafficking ... “Human life is the gift of our Creator. It should never be for sale,” Bush told a Justice Department conference with participants including the president’s brother, Jeb, Florida’s governor.

Bush’s remarks at the first-ever national training conference on human trafficking address an issue of vital concern to Evangelical Christians ...
Human traffickers bring as many as 17,500 people into the United States every year, trapping them in slavery-like conditions for forced sex, sweatshop labor and domestic servitude, the Bush administration says. As many as 800,000 people were trafficked across borders worldwide in the last year, 80 percent of them women.

“You’re in a fight against evil and the American people are grateful for your dedication and service,” the president told the conference. He said the administration’s approach is to combine stiff prison terms for the traffickers combined with compassion and care for the victims. ...
The White House says the president has long been interested in stopping human trafficking, promoting a $300 million program to support anti-trafficking strategies and calling on the United Nations last year to raise the issue high on its agenda.

And here is how Kerry responded -- and THIS is where my wife lost all respect for the Kerry campaign:

quote:
Kerry’s campaign criticized Bush, saying the Clinton administration focused significant attention on the issue and that Bush waited too long to submit an international protocol against trafficking to the U.S. Senate.... Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, “Just as he’s waited three long years to deal with addressing homeland security and fixing our intelligence problems, George Bush has dragged his heels on this important issue.”
My wife was livid that all the Kerry campaign had to say on this subject was to bitch about Bush. As on same sex marriage and Iraq, Kerry tries to play both sides, and avoids committing himself to a course of action; his whole campaign seems about back-seat bitching and intimating that he could do better while not making many serious suggestions.

Kerry should have praised the president's action, and then said what Kerry himself would do further, and talked about WHY we need to take it more seriously than what President Bush is doing.

Unlike Moore and Moveon.org, Most Democrats really do love our country more than they hate Bush, and they want leadership -- not just a couple of pretty boys that can talk about leadership, or bitch about current leaders. SHOW US leadership, damnit!

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You appear to confuse the word "liberal" with the phrase "anti-Republican." I submit that this would be easier for you to understand if you recognized that the terms are not synonymous.
Clapclapclap! But Tom, why are you telling that to Ron? Tell it to our dearly departed friend (rhymes with bleat-o) who always ranted how I wasn't a real Democrat or liberal or whatever. Yes, Ron's useage of the word is wrong, but it's a common misusage of the word, hereabouts, and not just from Republicans.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't mention it to Leto because I suspect Leto knows it already. The arguments you two always had on the subject were purely semantic ones, at heart.

I'm trying to explain this concept to Ron, however, because it's IMPORTANT: just because MoveOn wants Bush to lose, and Greenpeace activists want Bush to lose, does NOT mean that MoveOn is made up of a bunch of Greenpeace activists.

The most you can say about MoveOn, Ron -- and I'm speaking here as a member, and somebody who receives the regular newsletters and votes on the occasional issue -- is that its goal currently coincides with the goal of many traditional liberal organizations: the removal and discrediting of the Bush Administration and the Republican establishment. That's where the similarities stop, however.

I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, here, but I should point out that Ron is essentially saying that America is a communist country because, during WWII, we sent troops and money to help out Russia. While it's certainly true that some Americans were, at the time, already communists, it's also true that the primary reason behind our alliance was the need to deal with a common enemy.

Bush is a uniter, in the sense that he's managed to unite people who would otherwise agree on nothing under the shared agreement that absolutely anyone else would be an improvement.

Speaking as a former member of the media, it's worth pointing out that Ron's appeal to conventional wisdom -- "everyone SAYS MoveOn.org is a liberal organization, and who are you to say otherwise" -- is exactly what propagandists hope to achieve. Surely, because everyone SAYS MoveOn is liberal, and because MoveOn supports Democrats, MoveOn MUST be a flamingly liberal organization (and, as an even more insidious corollary, it becomes possible to smear the candidates MoveOn supports by saying that they're supported by a "notoriously liberal" organization, which is something I heard quite a lot during Dean's campaign). The other downside, of course, is that this kind of thing eventually becomes self-fulfilling; as more people insist that MoveOn is only made up of passionate liberals, only passionate liberals will think to join. And that WOULD be a shame, because destroying the Republican machine is something that the whole country should take pride in doing.

[ July 22, 2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, you're fighting a losing battle, which is probably why you and Tom are flapping about fart-powered bycycles. Moveon is neither liberal, conservative, nor moderate. Any of those would require principles. Moveon.org is closer to a paid hit man, like the bastard printer that Thomas Jefferson hired to smear Adams, back in days of yore.

Except this time, it's not the presidential candidate buying the character hit man, it's someone else (soros) buying both the candidate and the hit man.

And instead of a sole hit man, Moveon.org works by forming a mob. They don't care too much about political ideology. They'll take you if you're far right, like David Ricardo; they'll take you if you're a Stalinist like Moore, so long as you hate Bush.

Did I miss anything, Tom?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nope. That's entirely accurate (leaving aside the Soros-related smears, which I'll let slide only because some people can't seem to help themselves; it's like a verbal diarrhea), at least regarding the current makeup of the organization. I expect it will change when Bush is defeated, in the same way that it changed when Clinton left office.

[ July 23, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I've noticed that you and I often end up making virtually exactly the same assessments, except that we take diametrically opposite alignments on the issue. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lets see if I can make it clear for both Pete and Tom.

Tom tries to point to only the support mechanism (ie the funding) in order to "disprove" my point. But thats not the case at all, the position crumbles into semantics when the facts come out and no, Godwins law does not apply.

An organization has its key members who are known as "liberals".

An organization is supported financially by "liberals" (this is the only point that Tom wants to focus on).

An organization also is recognized as "liberal" by both those who support it and those who oppose it.

Now lets look at the fallacy Tom has put up.

He says that I am trying to state that simple support for an organization is the only thing I look at. Given what was written, that is, at best, a disegenuous argument. I have pointed out a number of other key features that bolster the point. Mainly the recognition by "all" other groups. The recognition of the leader as being a liberal.

Now Tom raises the analogy of Godwins law. I assume he knows it, though he seems to fail in its use at this point using a rather poor analogy. Maybe its a question of understanding the history of WWII, perhaps is a question of understanding Godwins law (there is a difference between using it as a debating point and using it to further understanding).

quote:
don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, here, but I should point out that Ron is essentially saying that America is a communist country because, during WWII, we sent troops and money to help out Russia. While it's certainly true that some Americans were, at the time, already communists, it's also true that the primary reason behind our alliance was the need to deal with a common enemy
It errors here reflect a poor understanding of the use of an analogy. First lets look at the poitns I raised and how they don't apply.

Moveon.org
1-An organization has its key members who are known as "liberals".


United States during WWII

1-Is not an organization that has its key members as "communists"

The analogy fails here.

Moveon.org

2-An organization is supported financially by "liberals".

The United States during WWII

2-The US supported the Soviet Union financially which includes material.

I think we both agree upon but it is not the sole basis of my position.

Moveon.org

3-An organization also is recognized as "liberal" by both those who support it and those who oppose it.

The United States during World War II

3-The US was not recognized as "communist" by either those who supported the US and those who oppose it.

The analogy fails here also.

Tom, I don't know where the myopia comes from, but perhaps you should read the posts a bit more carefully. I think concentrating on one of three points (actually others were made but those are the main three) simply is not credible when reviewed in the totality of the position. You may want to continue to harp on number 2 but there is no argument there. On the other hand points 1 and 3 are fairly convincing arguments and show you exercising semantics more than facts. I have not made the argument of being anti republican as being the equivalent being liberal. It is a red herring you suggested that I hope you will now put back in your bag of tricks. After all, such a position would negate the existence of libertarians which don't like republicans either (given the additional concentration of centralized power during this time of war).

Your use of Goodwins law is flawed based on your understanding of history and the posts already made. But then as a former member of the media you know that the unfair use of hyperbole and red herrings is an age old attack, of course it is usually used by those who don't have much in the way of facts. Lets hope that you can do better next time, maybe keep the personal attacks out of it.


Moveon.org is not viewed as liberal by one or two conservative groups. Such a triangulation might work if one existed in a cubicle and had one or two conservative organizations as sources for information. However the triangulation of ALL other liberal organisations as well as conservative and moderate organisations referring to the organisation of Moveon.org as liberal certainly seems to reflect both an understanding of liberalism (or course Tom could argue that liberals don't know what liberal means, that would be interesting [Wink] ) as well as an acknowledgement through a lack of dispute from Moveone.org that they are not liberal.

So Tom turns to us and says "Who are you going to believe, your own eyes or me?"

Better luck on your next comparison to history Tom.

[ July 23, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"After all, such a position would negate the existence of libertarians which don't like republicans either"

Oddly, I know a number of libertarians who donate to MoveOn because they're determined to beat Bush. Go figure. [Smile]

"or course Tom could argue that liberals don't know what liberal means, that would be interesting"

Not only would it be interesting, it would be CONSISTENT of me -- as this has been, in fact, a fairly constant assertion of mine, and one that I can't help feeling like I've made every single month on this site since it was first founded. It's not just that YOU don't understand that "liberal" doesn't mean "anti-Republican," Ron; it's that a surprising percentage of the country doesn't understand the difference, either. I'm not opposed to labels, mind you, but I'm pretty virulently opposed to INACCURATE labels.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1