With regard to Tom Delay, Debaser, if an indictment was not imminent, then why did the House Republicans go ahead and alter their ethics rules? The inescapable conclusion is that moveon is no more convinced of Delay’s potential for indictment that is the House leadership.
I’ll let UncleBeer speak for himself. But, he never states in his post that he does consider Moveon to be “unacceptable offensive”. The OP states it, and you goad him into trying to agree or disagree with it. My point is still valid. If he and I and any other conservative in the thread never said this, then why do we have to defend it?
I know the OP first stated the term. I said so right in my post. My point stands.
Who’s “they”? If you only mean the leaders or founders of Moveon than you are correct. However it says right on the page that every member has a voice in choosing the shared direction of the group. It was Moveon members who created the ad, correct? It was Moveon’s site that hosted the ad and posted it for viewing, right? If not for Moveon then that ad would not have existed or been viewed by anyone. The ad actually ended up getting lots more publicity than the other ads in the contest and ultimately did more harm than good.
What other war would they be talking about?
The first link has a copyright date of 2001-2002, and the second link refers to a petition that was delivered in October of 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, it would have been irrelevant if delivered later than this, given the timeline of U.S. actions.
As a point of reference, Iraq wasn’t invaded until late March of 2003.
It is clear that the referenced conflict was in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan only.
No, I don’t. That’s why I said in my post that I wasn’t convinced that they did.
Wow. Throw some statistics into the above and you’ve hit the mendacious trifecta.
Yeah, and it might be cold outside where I am. As to your claims that the media is liberal, back 'em up. The media is far more interested in being right (read: correct) than either Right or Left.
MoveOn is hardly made up of the most liberal people in the country. It’s less than amusing that you are so far to the right that you cannot see this.
And if this is an example of your argument that, “They ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler,”* then you’re simply lacking lies and statistics. Stick to your baseless claims that the media is liberal and out to get those poor benighted rightists. You improve your average to .666 simply by doing so.
*They did no such fucking thing. Ever.
Regarding Moveon being opposed to the war with Afghanistan…
From the “about us” page on Moveon.org:
The moveonpac.org site is similar to moveon.org in that there is very little information about actual policy goals or positions.
Can anybody get their hands on a copy of this petition that calls for a restrained response to 9/11? I’d be curious to see the language of it.
My apologies, John. I read the first part of your post 26 but overlooked the bottom part. A thousand pardons.
That seems to substantially weaken the connection between MoveOn.org and the stuff that Mr. Moto linked to. I was under the impression that MoveOn Peace was a part of MoveOn.org at the time they published the material that Mr. Moto finds objectionable, but apparently that isn’t so.
Isn’t that what Mr. Moto quoted in his first post in this thread?
“Makes clear”? Not quite - but that’s my fault; I’m sorry. My response was targeted to the question posed in the thread title, “How far to the left is MoveOn, really?” I wasn’t attempting to address what makes MoveOn “unacceptably offensive.” That particular point I cannot respond to; I simply don’t know enough about MoveOn’s specific positions and policies to paste such an absolute label on it. And from what I see in the rest of this thread, nobody else does either - but that may be simply because MoveOn doesn’t publicize their positions and policies in the clear manner of, say, Cato.org.
And quite honestly, Elvis, I’ve said not one single damned word about the Swifties - positive, or negative. For two reasons: One, I’ve been pretty busy at work since late June of '04 (I’ll bet I’ve posted less than 20 times here since then), and Two, I never could really make up my mind about the Swifties and their particular brand of activisim during the recent presidential campaign. So, if you please, refrain from attributing things like this to me when there’s simply no basis for such.
You are correct. I was searching the later links. They talk about the petition, but the links to it are all dead. However, Moto’s earlier links to it are good.
You may be right. Of course, this “inside info” is from the same network that flogged the forged Bush AWOL papers 
But it wouldn’t be wise of you to admit that you never heard of the issue before.
Ever heard of circular reasoning? It would fit into this particular defense of a lie:
The site was open for anyone who wanted to post it. It was removed by the organization’s leadership as soon as they became aware of it. By your reasoning, you could quote Ann Coulter on this board advocating converting the Middle East to Christianity and then proclaim that the Chicago Reader endorsed it. See the problem there? You tried to indict MoveOn for that little piece of crap by the same method.
Unc,, MoveOn is proudly and thoroughly partisan. So are you. Neither has squat to do with fringeness, looniness, or any of the other adjectives normally used by partisans to describe other partisans.
That’s not how I read the OP, and I wrote it. I just asked for evidence supporting the proposition that they were too ‘far out’ to associate with. Comparison with the ‘far out’ people the other major party hangs with seems to be one reasonable yardstick, IMHO. It may be that a double standard applies politically, of course, and that’s a legitimate argument to make if you’re making it. Or it may be that there are other, better yardsticks. Or whatever. But I did not single out national security and defense as issues, though it’s reasonable to assume their heightened importance in the world as it is.
No worries.
I have to honestly say that this “far left” accusation of MoveOn is a tough case to make, given the lack of policy statements to be found. And the anti-Bush ads we saw so much of in the last campaign are just politics. Even if the ads come across as shrill (not saying they do, but it’s all in the eye of the beholder), that still tells us nothing about how far left they are, it just tells us how passionate they are.
Does anyone have a link to Eli Pariser’s “We bought it, we own it, we’re going to take it back” e-mail that was reported on last month? I can only find the AP story, like this CNN link, and it doesn’t give much detail. Perhaps if we could see the full e-mail it might outline some specific policy goals for that organization. Just a thought…
Being something of a member, I received that e-mail. Nothing dramatic, no “red meat”…excuse, “tofu”. I could share it with you, but then I’d have to hunt you down, and my schedule is a little tight these days, what with subversion, depravity, and undermining fundamental moral values.
Take my word for it (bats big brown innocent eyes…) Nothing to see there. Move along.
Since the same governing principles apply to this great country of ours, that’s as if foreign countries were to judge us by a couple of extreme nutcase websites of domestic origin that were given a lot of publicity abroad by America-haters.
I’m gonna go with this: it doesn’t do either party any credit of they run away anytime someone yells “Boo!” So I’m expecting that both the Democrats and Republicans should choose their friends based on considered judgments of what they are, rather than by how they are painted by their mutual opponents. It’s always worth examining partisan criticisms to see if they have a point, but one should never ditch one’s friends based on baseless smears, even if the smears result in some bad publicity. In the long run, character and backbone matter.
You specifically mentioned me in the OP, and my criticisms of Move On were solely for their stance on national security. I’m simply reiterating those points in this thread, since they constitute the totality of the case I’ve made against them here.
You invited me to this party, and I’m just bringing what I was asked to bring.
It’s undoubtedly sitting on my home computer’s hard drive. Main thing that strikes me about that quote is that it’s been seriously twisted. The “We” there clearly isn’t MoveOn (although MoveOn considers itself to be part of that ‘we’), but rather the “grass-roots contributors like us” who “gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive.”
Since he’s speaking there on behalf of a much larger group of people than MoveOn, I wouldn’t hold out much hope that policy goals figure prominently in the email.
Could be. I thought the $300M referred to money raised specifically by MoveOn. And that’s one reason I was interested in seeing the source document, rather than just the analysis of that document.
Probably. But we still might gain some insight into the goals of the leadership of MoveOn.org.
I have the actual email.
If you’re willing to email me, I’ll forward it back to you.
Amarinth: be sure to redact the parts about the Jane Fonda Political Re-Education and Aerobic Excercise Camp. Comrade Soros doesn’t want that made public just yet.