NationStates Jolt Archive

It occurred to me today while I was waiting to see the dentist that there seem to be a lot of accusations about "liberal groups" and the like. One group that invariably gets tossed out as an example of an extremist group is Moveon.org. Now I have my theories as to why "conservative" pundits toss them out as an example of an extremist group, but I'm curious as to why they have this reputation.

So here's a request to the conservatives on the board. Explain to me--calmly and factually and without smartass one-liners (I got my first ever official warning the other day and I'm forcing myself to calm down) how exactly Moveon.org is an extremist organization instead of a mainstream Democratic organization.

Now I know that there are "conservatives" out there who consider the Democratic party to be an extremist organization. If that's going to be your line of reasoning, I'd just as soon you didn't join in here. But if you're an honest conservative who really believes Moveon.org is an extremist group, I'd like to hear why. My guess is that you may believe they stand for some things that they don't in actuality.

They aired ads comparing Bush to Hitler. That's pretty extreme.

Personally, they're not that extremist, I've seen worse. But their status as a 527 is pretty dubious.

They aired ads comparing Bush to Hitler. That's pretty extreme.

Personally, they're not that extremist, I've seen worse. But their status as a 527 is pretty dubious.
Incertonia will probably beat me to this, but they did not air that ad. They had a contest for people to make ads, someone made one comparing Bush to Hitler and MoveOn.org thought the ad was inappropriate and pulled it from the competition.

There is hysteria and what really happens...

They aired ads comparing Bush to Hitler. That's pretty extreme.

Personally, they're not that extremist, I've seen worse. But their status as a 527 is pretty dubious.See--here's one of those circumstances I'm talking about, where you've simply gotten bad information.

Moveon.org never aired any commercial comparing Bush to Hitler. In fact, they went to great lengths to ensure that commercial was never aired. It was submitted as part of a contest--a contest with over 1,00 entrants that it didn't even come close to making the finals in, and it was removed from the website even before final judging. Regardless, it was not a Moveon.org as, and it was never aired by Moveon.org. The only people to ever air any of it was, strangely enough, the Bush campaign--they included a snippet of it in a campaign ad that basically called the Democratic party a bunch of looneys.

Moveon.org...is the swift boat group for the democratics, in that they are the front organization for the dirty work, and extra funding. This is coming from a Kerry supporter (anyone see him on the Daily Show today? I think I may have been like...50% responsible for that happening...go me!), and I think anyone willing to rationally look at them will realize, they aren't mainstream, just as Swift Boats isn't.

My guess is that you may believe they stand for some things that they don't in actuality.They aired ads comparing Bush to Hitler. That's pretty extreme.that was fast. In the Bush in 30 Seconds contest, MoveOn.org rejected two entries that compared Bush to Hitler. George W Bush's election campaign made a campaign ad that used the same Hitler footage among what it called footage of John Kerry's supporters. Regarding the use of the Hitler card, the extreme group isn't Moveon.org; it's...



This opinion article links to some of the sources http://slate.msn.com/id/2103033

Moveon.org...is the swift boat group for the democratics, in that they are the front organization for the dirty work, and extra funding. This is coming from a Kerry supporter (anyone see him on the Daily Show today? I think I may have been like...50% responsible for that happening...go me!), and I think anyone willing to rationally look at them will realize, they aren't mainstream, just as Swift Boats isn't.
But why do you think that? What, specifically, have they done that places them outside the mainstream of American politics?

I'm really starting to think that the reason so many people think Moveon is extreme is because people like Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh have said it so often that people are just starting to accept it. That's why I'm looking for a reasonable discussion on this, especially over potential misconceptions like the one we've already discussed--the Hitler ad.

I'm willing to listen to arguments that Moveon is extreme--but they have to be real arguments, not just accusations and conventional wisdom.

OK, so scratch the Hitler ad. I really couldn't care less about moveon.org other than the fact that they are blatantly exploiting a loophole in McCain-Feingold.

But the fact that they kept the ad up on their website for months and many moveon.org members seem to agree with the Bush-Hitler equivalence makes me think that moveon is an organization filled with extremist members.

Oh, and the fact that they are still griping about Florida 2000 even though their founding mission was to get America to "move on" from the Lewinsky scandal is kinda funny. Move the fuck on already! :)

OK, so scratch the Hitler ad. I really couldn't care less about moveon.org other than the fact that they are blatantly exploiting a loophole in McCain-Feingold.

But the fact that they kept the ad up on their website for months and many moveon.org members seem to agree with the Bush-Hitler equivalence makes me think that moveon is an organization filled with extremist members.

Oh, and the fact that they are still griping about Florida 2000 even though their founding mission was to get America to "move on" from the Lewinsky scandal is kinda funny. Move the fuck on already! :)Okay--I'm one of the hundreds of thousands of Moveon members. In fact, my girlfriend wrote the script for one of the finalists in the ad contest (not the winner). And unless my memory has gone completely to hell, the ad wasn't up for months. Let me add that the fact that the ad did so poorly in the contest during the time it was up shows that most of the members felt very uncomfortable with the comparison--I know I did. I mean, I think George W. Bush is as big a piece of crap as exists in politics, but he's no Hitler.

As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, well, it's a bit naive to write a loophole into a law and then not expect groups to exploit it. There are Republican groups exploiting it as well.

As to the Florida 2000 election, a glance at their website mentions nothing about it, so perhaps they have moved on.

But why do you think that? What, specifically, have they done that places them outside the mainstream of American politics?

I'm really starting to think that the reason so many people think Moveon is extreme is because people like Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh have said it so often that people are just starting to accept it. That's why I'm looking for a reasonable discussion on this, especially over potential misconceptions like the one we've already discussed--the Hitler ad.

I'm willing to listen to arguments that Moveon is extreme--but they have to be real arguments, not just accusations and conventional wisdom.
I would hardly take O'Reilly (aka "Mr. Shut Up!") or Rush "Painkillers" Limbaugh, for the Gospel. However, to bring up points from their own website...

1) http://www.moveon.org/censure/
2) http://www.moveon.org/press/pdfs/mooremtgs.pdf
3) http://www.moveon.org/press/pdfs/mooremtgs.pdf

Examples that took all of five seconds to five. Those aren't mainstream (unless your insane and think Michael Moore is somehow a moderate).

Moveon.org is far left...and unfortunately the most well known of the leftist organizations, thereby stopping more moderate ones from gaining their due support.

Okay--I'm one of the hundreds of thousands of Moveon members. In fact, my girlfriend wrote the script for one of the finalists in the ad contest (not the winner). And unless my memory has gone completely to hell, the ad wasn't up for months.

As far as McCain-Feingold is concerned, well, it's a bit naive to write a loophole into a law and then not expect groups to exploit it. There are Republican groups exploiting it as well.

As to the Florida 2000 election, a glance at their website mentions nothing about it, so perhaps they have moved on.

I was able to access the video on their website for quite a while... Drudge had a link up on its site. LOL.

Indeed, there are GOP groups exploiting it. But the vast majority of 527's are Democratic, and if I remember right, they already spent $60 million on attack ads this year. The Swiftees, the most well known GOP group, spent less than $1 million. Here in Oregon, other than the Swiftees I have yet see a single ad aired by a GOP 527.

Back at Cornell University there was a big moveon get-together in front of the student union building and I remember they were raving about Florida 2000. Two classes later on my way home they were still whining about it. I thought it was hilarious; obviously it doesn't mean moveon.org in general is obsessed with Florida 2000 but I can safely say a lot of Cornellians in moveon.org are. :)

Incertonia, you missed something very obvious. There is no doubt that Moveon.org is a 527. All that is required is that they have a source of funding not connected to the campaign and bears no legal responsibilities which could endanger the campaign of the target party recieving their sympathy.

MoveOn is not necessarily extremist. They are however, progandistic and extrapolating in their messages, having seen a few of their ads, using incomplete truths and outright lies in some cases. John Kerry himself denounced MoveOn.org as extreme, although that was more for image than anything else seeing as he has been uncooperative with the idea of eliminating 527s altogether. The GOP and the DP's campaigns have been much less vicous, indeed, factcheck found nothing wrong with recent exploits by the GOP involving Kerry's lackluster political career, in fact, they found they gave kerry some leeway by excluding one confrence on his list of abscenses which was disputable and still ended up showing Kerry was absent for the vast majority of assemblies.

MoveOn also is very rich, they have many millions to work with and get volunteer labor from expert producers (which might in part be why the 527 by SBVFT attracted so much attention, its amateurish documentary style probably had a greater impact despite less funding.

Anyway, how extreme MoveOn is is ultimately not the issue. The issue is that they remove balance and liability, as well as other 527s, the vast majority which are current democratic, with a few of them tending towards the far left. MoveOn stands out among democratic 527s because of their professionalism and high budget. 527s in this sense are a bane on the political process and political advertising should remain in the hands of the campaigns.

Here in Oregon, other than the Swiftees I have yet see a single ad aired by a GOP 527.

Here in ohio, we get them all the time. The big one, aside from SBVFT, is the American Defense Council. At least, I think that is the name of the group.

:rolleyes:

Here in ohio, we get them all the time. The big one, aside from SBVFT, is the American Defense Council. At least, I think that is the name of the group.

:rolleyes:

I guess, Oregon isn't exactly a swing state.

Either way, I'd wager that moveon.org has more funding than every GOP 527 combined.

Well, depends on your definition of extreme. I personally concider Moore extreme.

Given that, Moveon.org's rabid defense and promotion of F/911 could be concidered extreme.

Well, depends on your definition of extreme. I personally concider Moore extreme.

Given that, Moveon.org's rabid defense and promotion of F/911 could be concidered extreme.Why? Fahrenheit 9/11 can't be all that extreme--it made over $100 million at the box office, which means it had to have appealed to at least a segment of mainstream America. Remember, I'm not arguing that Moveon isn't partisan--I'm asking for proof that they're extremists, that they're the left wing's version of, say, Michael Savage.

Tremalkier, the last two of your links were identical--was that intentional? As to the first, the call for the censure of the President for making misleading statements about the lead up to the war in Iraq and the subsequent stonewalling and limiting of the investigation into that event is hardly extreme. After all, the last President of the United States was impeached over his private sexual conduct, and impeachment is decidedly more extreme than censure. As to the second, I still don't see how the promotion of a film that wound up grossing over $100 million domestically and that appealed to wide section of the US public counts as extremist behavior.

I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative and I have come to the conclusions that Bush, Kerry, MoveOn and the Swift Vets are all crooked

I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative and I have come to the conclusions that Bush, Kerry, MoveOn and the Swift Vets are all crooked
Well, I'm asking everyone else on the thread, so here goes--how is Moveon crooked? I definitely agree with you on Bush and the Swifties because I have proof, and I could be convinced on Kerry, but I'd like some proof for Moveon, because I'm thinking they're getting a bad rap.

Why? Fahrenheit 9/11 can't be all that extreme--it made over $100 million at the box office, which means it had to have appealed to at least a segment of mainstream America. ....
... As to the second, I still don't see how the promotion of a film that wound up grossing over $100 million domestically and that appealed to wide section of the US public counts as extremist behavior.
Rush Limbaugh had a $300 million radio contract signed two years ago - under your logic that would make him mainstream also.

I am voting for Bush even though I think we could use a better president but Kerry sucks and so does Nader.

Rush Limbaugh had a $300 million radio contract signed two years ago - under your logic that would make him mainstream also.He's been accepted as mainstream by the media. His talking points every day are nearly identical to what the Republican party talks about every day, and they control all three branches of government. If that ain't mainstream, what is?

Doesn't change the fact that he's a liar--being a liar and being mainstream are not mutually exclusive.

I am voting for Bush even though I think we could use a better president but Kerry sucks and so does Nader.
And this has what to do with the topic?

I dont know just a random thought my friend.

I dont know just a random thought my friend.
which just proves my point in the other topic

He's been accepted as mainstream by the media. His talking points every day are nearly identical to what the Republican party talks about every day, and they control all three branches of government. If that ain't mainstream, what is?

Doesn't change the fact that he's a liar--being a liar and being mainstream are not mutually exclusive.


OMG! You are the last person I expected to disagree with regareding Limbaugh.

I am conservative and don't even consider him mainstream.

Possibly because IMHO mainstream to me is when anyone can advertize or support the cause without fear of offending anyone.

Why? Fahrenheit 9/11 can't be all that extreme--it made over $100 million at the box office, which means it had to have appealed to at least a segment of mainstream America. Remember, I'm not arguing that Moveon isn't partisan--I'm asking for proof that they're extremists, that they're the left wing's version of, say, Michael Savage.

(snipped as it was to another poster)



I didnt say that F9/11 was extreme, I was saying that Moore was extreme, although I do think the movie was extreme as well.

One of the reasons that the movie made so much money was because it appeals to that portion of the country that dislikes Bush (logically or illogically). I saw an editorial by a liberal newspaper writer saying he was encouraging everyone he knew to see the movie. He acknowledged that the movie was misleading at best, but since it succeeded at installing a sense of "rightous anger" in it's viewers it was worth a look see.

OMG! You are the last person I expected to disagree with regareding Limbaugh.

I am conservative and don't even consider him mainstream.

Possibly because IMHO mainstream to me is when anyone can advertize or support the cause without fear of offending anyone.
I consider Limbaugh mainstream in the sense that he's accepted as a legitimate source of information by a sizable audience. Whether or not he offends people doesn't enter into the equation for me--lots of people in the mainstream are guilty of offending people on a regular basis. But look at Limbaugh's career--he has easily the highest rated talk radio show in the country, he's had his own television show which did well by the standards of the competition he was up against, he was considered mainstream enough to have been in the running for the Monday Night Football job until they gave it to Dennis Miller, and was on ESPN until that stupid Donovan McNabb comment got him canned. If you ask a person on the street if they know who Rush Limbaugh is, you'll probably get a yes answer (how they feel about him is another matter, but he's recognizable). All that adds up to mainstream for me.

I'm deliberately steering away from whether or not his ideas are mainstream because it's really a personal question. I don't think they are, but I'm also the first to admit that I'm hardly subjective when it comes to assessing Limbaugh's positions versus those of the US public.

But in the case of Moveon--the original subject of the thread (and thanks for resurrecting it)--they're accused of holding ideas and espousing causes that are extremist, or out of the mainstream, so I'm asking people to give me examples of Moveon causes or actions that fit that description. Proof, not anecdote, and actions by the organization, not by individual members.

OMG! You are the last person I expected to disagree with regareding Limbaugh.

I am conservative and don't even consider him mainstream.

Possibly because IMHO mainstream to me is when anyone can advertize or support the cause without fear of offending anyone.

Ummm, I thought conservatives hated "political correctness"? Any time a strong political statement is made, whether it's based on fact, opinion, or bald-faced bias, it's going to offend a good number of people.

In my opinion, people are too sensitive* these days...and this is coming from a liberal!

*Bush, Cheney and Kerry all used the word, so don't come out with an anti-Kerry diatribe on it. The word has several meanings.

Movingon.org is tasty. I made a little video for them, but i neglected to send it in. I think they would pull it out though. Much course language, and it doesn't make much sense...unless you're me.

i consider limbaugh a lying scumbag hypocrite

"Extreme" would be the wrong word. I consider MoveOn to be a biased active measures group, essentially put together to remove George W. Bush from office. In pursuing this objective they appear to be willing to use any libel of Bush, to include dirty tricks, outright lies as well as half-truths.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.bush.soros.reut/

The "Hitler" issue:

http://www.leftwatch.com/discussion/fullthread$msgNum=7633

I've dealt with similar pro-Left factions for over 20 years. MoveOn is just another of these. They do not support "extreme Left" issues, because the Left is a group of like-minded professional usurpers and has no strong ideological stances, thus there is no "extreme Left" - just the Left. It's sort of a club for despots and their supporters, thus why they were so upset about the US having toppled Saddam Hussein.

Their worry is that Bush administration policies might become the norm, thereby jeapordising a number of tyrannies under attack by dissentors, as well as destabilising thier power in Europe and the US. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been a constant worry for Leftists.

Okay, now I agree with the first part of your statement, Impunia--they are without a doubt a partisan group, but they've never claimed to be anything else, so that's not an issue.

But this quote: "In pursuing this objective they appear to be willing to use any libel of Bush, to include dirty tricks, outright lies as well as half-truths" I have issue with. The CNN piece you linked has nothing to do with dirty tricks, outright lies or half-truths, and I'd like to see some evidence that Moveon has done any of those things.

On a personal note, I'd like to say that I consider this quote "It's sort of a club for despots and their supporters, thus why they were so upset about the US having toppled Saddam Hussein" to be extraordinarily offensive, not to mention inaccurate.

Mainly just because they bash Bush. Example: Bush is responsible for all the job loss and september 11 he hasnt really lowered taxes Kerry is good he will lower taxes even though he has voted to raise them 50 sometimes. In total moveon.org is just a lying evil organization.

Their worry is that Bush administration policies might become the norm, thereby jeapordising a number of tyrannies under attack by dissentors, as well as destabilising thier power in Europe and the US. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been a constant worry for Leftists.
If the policies you are reffering to include the policy of pre-emptive warfare, then yes, I am afraid that this may become the norm. It's called paranoid imperialism, and that is not a thing that should be exhibited in the foriegn policy of a "free" country.

Moveon.org is partisan. Duh. They are a political group, not a news service! What they do is support liberal issues. I don't think that they are particularly extreme. I live in, and attend public highschool in, Berkeley, CA. If you want to see extremist liberalism, come drop by a period of Environmental Science, Identity and Ethnic Studies, or almost any History class at Berkeley High.

It's sort of a club for despots and their supporters, thus why they were so upset about the US having toppled Saddam Hussein.

Hit the nail on the head.

I consider Limbaugh mainstream in the sense that he's accepted as a legitimate source of information by a sizable audience. Whether or not he offends people doesn't enter into the equation for me--lots of people in the mainstream are guilty of offending people on a regular basis.

So using this definition of mainstream, you would consider Al Qaeda mainstream? They have been accepted as a legitimate source of information by sizeable audience....I hear they have quite a following in some parts of the world.

So using this definition of mainstream, you would consider Al Qaeda mainstream? They have been accepted as a legitimate source of information by sizeable audience....I hear they have quite a following in some parts of the world.
Why are you in this thread again? It's certainly not to take part in a discussion of any sort. Same goes for you, MunkeBrain and Enodscopia. If you're looking to start a flame war, please take it outside. Grownups are trying to talk in here.

I myself see no difference between Moveon.org, Democracynow.org, and Fox News.

The only difference is, that only one out those three makes a pretense of being a "Fair and Balanced" Journalistic media source.

Why are you in this thread again? It's certainly not to take part in a discussion of any sort. Same goes for you, MunkeBrain and Enodscopia. If you're looking to start a flame war, please take it outside. Grownups are trying to talk in here.

I amin this thread to ask you a simple question which you can obviously not answer. You posted your definition of "mainstream", I asked if you considered Al Qaeda mainstream as they fit your description. Don't throw tantrums because a flaw in your logic is exposed.
Seeing as this thread was to discuss whether or not moveon.org was extreme or mainstream I felt it was relevant to the discussion in so far as trying to understand what you consider to be extreme. Ultimately the determination of what is extreme or mainstream is up to the individual and their beliefs. Not some generic definition you have posted. By pointing out the flaw in your definition I thought it may open up wider discussion from you on the topic but instead you acuse anyone who disagrees with your definition as a flamer or flamebaiter. I am none of those. So, seeing as you profess to be engaging in an adult discussion, perhaps you could give an adult answer to my question?

After watching the ads on the moveon.org website I can say with certainty that they are a radical group preying on the ignorance of others through half-truths and misinformation. I have examples of this in several ads. Man, I though you liberals were offended by swift votes for truth.......

After watching the ads on the moveon.org website I can say with certainty that they are a radical group preying on the ignorance of others through half-truths and misinformation. I have examples of this in several ads. Man, I though you liberals were offended by swift votes for truth.......
Don't just talk--show. You say you have examples--document them for us and let's discuss them, one by one as reasonable people.

I amin this thread to ask you a simple question which you can obviously not answer. You posted your definition of "mainstream", I asked if you considered Al Qaeda mainstream as they fit your description. Don't throw tantrums because a flaw in your logic is exposed.
Seeing as this thread was to discuss whether or not moveon.org was extreme or mainstream I felt it was relevant to the discussion in so far as trying to understand what you consider to be extreme. Ultimately the determination of what is extreme or mainstream is up to the individual and their beliefs. Not some generic definition you have posted. By pointing out the flaw in your definition I thought it may open up wider discussion from you on the topic but instead you acuse anyone who disagrees with your definition as a flamer or flamebaiter. I am none of those. So, seeing as you profess to be engaging in an adult discussion, perhaps you could give an adult answer to my question?
Your question was crap--al Qaeda does not fit mainstream political thought by any description of the word. It's a radical group and rafers to itself as such. If you're serious about discussing this, then leave groups like al Qaeda out of it. Otherwise, plan to be ignored and dismissed.

heres my first example ( I will take them one at a time). One prominant ad depicts children working in factories to pay off " Bush's trillion dollar debt". Little does the ad mention:
A) the united States has had a national debt since 1838
B) it has been growing since 1957 every year
c) Ronald Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the national debt ( more than George w.)
d) george Bush (41) added 1.4 trillion dollars to the national debt ( more than george w.)
e) Bill clinton added 1.6 trillion dollars to the national debt ( more than george w.)
f) the national debt was nearly twice as large adjusted for price inflation in 1945 than it is today
G) none of the above ended up causing children to work in factories to pay it off

misleading and vile propaganda is what that ad is. shall I give another example now?

Your question was crap--al Qaeda does not fit mainstream political thought by any description of the word. It's a radical group and rafers to itself as such. If you're serious about discussing this, then leave groups like al Qaeda out of it. Otherwise, plan to be ignored and dismissed.

I'm sorry, I thought it was you who defined "mainstream" as follows:


I consider Limbaugh mainstream in the sense that he's accepted as a legitimate source of information by a sizable audience. Whether or not he offends people doesn't enter into the equation for me--lots of people in the mainstream are guilty of offending people on a regular basis. ---SNIP--- If you ask a person on the street if they know who Rush Limbaugh is, you'll probably get a yes answer (how they feel about him is another matter, but he's recognizable). All that adds up to mainstream for me.
(*Emphasis mine)

I could easily insert Al Qaeda or bin Laden where you have used Limbaugh. So again, I ask you if you now see your definition, by which you are judging everyone else's perception of moveon.org by, to have flaws itself? I used Al Qaeda as a "extreme" example to show my point. If the use of Al Qaeda as an example offended you then that was not my intention. My intention was to show that people have differing views on what is extreme and what is mainstream. Therefore using your definition to judge everyone elses' views was not a realistic assessment.
But, if you want to ignore anyone who challenges what you post then be my guest.

Who cares what is mainstream or not. If it is misleading and mean it is not a good thing. ( ie, moveon.org- the subject of the thread)

Who cares what is mainstream or not. If it is misleading and mean it is not a good thing. ( ie, moveon.org- the subject of the thread)

I agree with you.

I agree with you.

I am honored that you would write the above in your 1000th post.

notice my example on the last page that they all ignored...

I am honered that you would write the above in your 1000th post.

As the recipient of my 1000th post you win 1000 bottles of the finest Tygalandic Gletscher Schnapps...enjoy! :D

heres my first example ( I will take them one at a time). One prominant ad depicts children working in factories to pay off " Bush's trillion dollar debt". Little does the ad mention:
A) the united States has had a national debt since 1838
B) it has been growing since 1957 every year
c) Ronald Reagan added 1.7 trillion to the national debt ( more than George w.)
d) george Bush (41) added 1.4 trillion dollars to the national debt ( more than george w.)
e) Bill clinton added 1.6 trillion dollars to the national debt ( more than george w.)
f) the national debt was nearly twice as large adjusted for price inflation in 1945 than it is today
G) none of the above ended up causing children to work in factories to pay it off

misleading and vile propaganda is what that ad is. shall I give another example now?
You absolutely missed the point of the ad, if you're being honest here. The ad was using a metaphor--the point was that the debt we create today will be owed by our children, and they'll be paying it with their tax dollars. Your point about Clinton is also more than a bit misleading, since his total refers to his entire 8 year term while Bush has racked nearly as much in less than 4 years, not to mention that by the end of his term, Clinton was running surpluses. Bush's deficits have gotten bigger every year of his administration.

So what's next?

I could easily insert Al Qaeda or bin Laden where you have used Limbaugh. So again, I ask you if you now see your definition, by which you are judging everyone else's perception of moveon.org by, to have flaws itself? I used Al Qaeda as a "extreme" example to show my point. If the use of Al Qaeda as an example offended you then that was not my intention. My intention was to show that people have differing views on what is extreme and what is mainstream. Therefore using your definition to judge everyone elses' views was not a realistic assessment.
But, if you want to ignore anyone who challenges what you post then be my guest.
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are not information sources--you're comparing apples to oranges here. Why don't you see that?

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are not information sources--you're comparing apples to oranges here. Why don't you see that?

Their followers would disagree. The audiotapes and videotapes that get worldwide coverage would also disagree with your comments.

You absolutely missed the point of the ad, if you're being honest here. The ad was using a metaphor--the point was that the debt we create today will be owed by our children, and they'll be paying it with their tax dollars. Your point about Clinton is also more than a bit misleading, since his total refers to his entire 8 year term while Bush has racked nearly as much in less than 4 years, not to mention that by the end of his term, Clinton was running surpluses. Bush's deficits have gotten bigger every year of his administration.

So what's next?

you did not read what I wrote. The national debt is not like a houshold debt. it never gets paid off ....ever ( read what i wrote ...again). No children owe anything. I know it's hard to understand but it is a historical reality if you do a little research ( I know it's boring). secondly Bill Clinton added more to the debt in his 8 years than Bush has in the last 4. And imagine that....we survived..both times. Bill Clinton ran a surplus in his last year. Again, this did not effect anything ( we went into a recession that year after all). The defecit is on a projected decrease for next year's budget.

Their followers would disagree. The audiotapes and videotapes that get worldwide coverage would also disagree with your comments.
Would you be happier if I limited the discussion to the United States and political advocacy groups? That's what I was talking about in my original post, after all.

The united states has had a national debt every year from 1776-1835 and 1836- the present. It does not get paid off. it does not have to be. Scaring people by showing kids working in factories is silly and cruel.

you did not read what I wrote. The national debt is not like a houshold debt. it never gets paid off ....ever ( read what i wrote ...again). No children owe anything. I know it's hard to understand but it is a historical reality if you do a little research ( I know it's boring). secondly Bill Clinton added more to the debt in his 8 years than Bush has in the last 4. And imagine that....we survived..both times. Bill Clinton ran a surplus in his last year. Again, this did not effect anything ( we went into a recession that year after all). The defecit is on a projected decrease for next year's budget.
Actually, we do pay it--we pay the interest anyway, and if you look at the debt during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, we actually lowered our debt burden that had risen during the Depression/WWII years. We are paying our parents' debt, and our children will pay ours, even if we're only looking at it in terms of paying the interest on the debt.

And while we have survived being in debt this long, we are rapidly coming onto a fiscal crisis where our debt service as a percentage of GDP will become untenable. Those are facts, and if you can't handle it, sorry, but the ad was accurate.

Would you be happier if I limited the discussion to the United States and political advocacy groups? That's what I was talking about in my original post, after all.

If thats what you want to do, it does not worry me either way. I was just making a point that making everyone judge by your terms is not an entirely fair thing to expect. What you see as extreme others may not see that way and vice versa.
So, moveon.org, while mainstream to you, may not be mainstream to the next person. The reasons cited by that person may not cut it with you and your views but nonetheless it is their opinion.

If thats what you want to do, it does not worry me either way. I was just making a point that making everyone judge by your terms is not an entirely fair thing to expect. What you see as extreme others may not see that way and vice versa.
So, moveon.org, while mainstream to you, may not be mainstream to the next person. The reasons cited by that person may not cut it with you and your views but nonetheless it is their opinion.
Well, do you have a better description of mainstream to offer? I'm listening.

:headbang:
Ok, I'm not going to bang my head on the wall to make any points, as they will end up moot in this crowd regardless. I'm simply going to state my opinion, and call it a day.

MoveAlongDotUnorg is obviously extreme, they hate America, love people that hate America and will do anything to tear apart this country UNLESS they have their man in office. I don't mind people disliking Bush, this is freedom, but to desire the destruction of him and his party at the expense of the whole country is basically their position. :mp5:

I hate people who hate America, they can call themselves whatever they like. If your going to put Republicans in headlocks that try to shout at your speaches, while you march in hundreds of thousands strong at our meetings, we might as well all get guns to defend ourselves.

Freedom of speech is only good if your a Democrat, Republicans have little freedom out in the open, and that is why I hate MoveAlong, becuase they do everything they can to supress my freedom, rather than debate facts and issues freely. :gundge:

Well, do you have a better description of mainstream to offer? I'm listening.

You are missing the whole point. The point being that the individual has their own opinion on what is extreme and what is mainstream. There is no universal definition because it is decided by the person based on their experiences, beliefs and morals.
Therefore, by asking people whether they think moveon.org is extreme, you really do not gain any great insight into what is considered extreme or what is considered mainstream. All you get is people expressig their opinion. By you applying your definition of extreme or mainstream to others views and expecting these people to justify their views based on your definitions is unfair.

You are missing the whole point. The point being that the individual has their own opinion on what is extreme and what is mainstream. There is no universal definition because it is decided by the person based on their experiences, beliefs and morals.
Therefore, by asking people whether they think moveon.org is extreme, you really do not gain any great insight into what is considered extreme or what is considered mainstream. All you get is people expressig their opinion. By you applying your definition of extreme or mainstream to others views and expecting these people to justify their views based on your definitions is unfair.
On the contrary--I get the knowledge of what others consider extreme and what they consider mainstream. I get a baseline for discussion. If I know what you consider to be extremist, then we can form a foundation for discussion about this topic.

The other thing that this thread has done, at least for me, is shown me that while lots of people make the accusation that Moveon is extreme, they really don't know how to back it up, or they try to back it up with false accusations, like the whole Hitler ad thing.

I'm still interested in what you find to be extremist political thought here in the US, and whether or not Moveon fits that description, and if it does, then why it does.

http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/fox_nytimes.pdf

The perfect example of the scumminess of move.org. Comparing Fox News to Pravda. I guess that makes moveon.org the equal of NAMBLA.

On the contrary--I get the knowledge of what others consider extreme and what they consider mainstream. I get a baseline for discussion. If I know what you consider to be extremist, then we can form a foundation for discussion about this topic.

But you are not interested in forming the baseline, you are usuing your views on extremism as the baseline.

The other thing that this thread has done, at least for me, is shown me that while lots of people make the accusation that Moveon is extreme, they really don't know how to back it up, or they try to back it up with false accusations, like the whole Hitler ad thing.

Again, that is your opinion on what is extreme and asking people to justify their views by your interpretation of extreme. How can anyone show you that moveon.org is extreme when you are adamant that it is not?

I'm still interested in what you find to be extremist political thought here in the US, and whether or not Moveon fits that description, and if it does, then why it does.

My views on what constitutes extreme political thought...I would describe it as a view that refuses to acknowledge counter-arguments, a view that subscribes to the theory of "what ever it takes to get our message across". By that I mean they are willing to grossly distort or omit information to "prove" their point.
Now how does moveon.org rate against my definition of extreme political thought. Hmmm...borderline on the acknowledgement of counter-argument as it is a left-wing love fest as you would expect. No mention of any counter-arguments, just a non-stop flood of pro-left news.
As far as distorting the facts or omitting the facts. I cannot see anything that fits that description, but I have not really looked at each story in great detail. I will point out that referencing other left-wing websites as sources for material is a bit feeble.
So overall I would say they are borderline extremists from a political standpoint due tot he fact that they do not discuss counter arguments and only post what they perceive as relevant. I would also go as far as to say that an organisation such as moveon.org would be a magnet for left-wing extremists.
On a side note, moveon.org seem pretty keen to get "donations" from people, if they are not asking for donations they are plugging a book or a movie. not hard to see what their aims are.

Moveon.org...is the swift boat group for the democratics, in that they are the front organization for the dirty work, and extra funding. This is coming from a Kerry supporter (anyone see him on the Daily Show today? I think I may have been like...50% responsible for that happening...go me!), and I think anyone willing to rationally look at them will realize, they aren't mainstream, just as Swift Boats isn't.


whoah, whoah...Dont compare us to those damn swift boaters out there, theyre working on lies to try and get that basterd to stay in the house, just sitting around builduing jigsaw ouzzles while Wolfowitz and rumsfeld make him millions and John Ashcroft guts the constitution. Moveon works on facts, boy, not on lies.

Moveon works on facts, boy, not on lies.
That is the single funniest thing I have heard all year. Thanks for a wonderful laugh. :p

That is the single funniest thing I have heard all year. Thanks for a wonderful laugh. :p


I dont see how its funny. Do we exaggerate? yes, a little....ok, a shitload, almost as much as moore, we exaggerate and we jump to conclusions. But we dont lie.

I'm a member of moveon.org, and of Act (america coming together). I spent my summer vacation to get Kerry elected in Ohio. I live in New York City. I was even on tv during that week. And I'm only 14
I can't remember my point

Ok, CRACKPIE, let me get this straight... exaggerating a shitload isnt lying. Got it.

So, when Bush makes a case for something, with intelligence he had at the time he wasnt lying.

Wasn't that a major piece of "information" that Moveon.org used? Calling Bush a liar for just that same thing?

I'm a member of moveon.org, and of Act (america coming together). I spent my summer vacation to get Kerry elected in Ohio. I live in New York City. I was even on tv during that week. And I'm only 14
I can't remember my point
That you wasted your summer on a lost cause.

That you wasted your summer on a lost cause.

:D

Ok, CRACKPIE, let me get this straight... exaggerating a shitload isnt lying. Got it.

So, when Bush makes a case for something, with intelligence he had at the time he wasnt lying.

Wasn't that a major piece of "information" that Moveon.org used? Calling Bush a liar for just that same thing?
What did they exaggerate? I'm not standing for any accusations without backup in this thread--from anyone. Let's see what you have to say Moveon did and then discuss whether or not it's an exaggeration.

http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/fox_nytimes.pdf

The perfect example of the scumminess of move.org. Comparing Fox News to Pravda. I guess that makes moveon.org the equal of NAMBLA.Is there anything inaccurate in that flier? If there is, then prove it. I'm listening.

The CNN piece you linked has nothing to do with dirty tricks, outright lies or half-truths, and I'd like to see some evidence that Moveon has done any of those things.

The contest was designed to create virulent anti-Bush propaganda that MoveOn could later disown. That "Hitler bit" was only one of these pieces. That contest, thus, in my estimation was a "dirty trick".

Here's some more:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=218
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=201

They seem also involved in the forging of documents related to President Bush's military record:

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

http://cayankee.blogs.com/

You will of course claim to be "shaking with rage" at my untoward and 9of course) utterly false comments. No doubt you have nice, debate-style answers to at least throw doubt on what MoveOn is. All well and good.

My views on what constitutes extreme political thought...I would describe it as a view that refuses to acknowledge counter-arguments, a view that subscribes to the theory of "what ever it takes to get our message across". By that I mean they are willing to grossly distort or omit information to "prove" their point.
Now how does moveon.org rate against my definition of extreme political thought. Hmmm...borderline on the acknowledgement of counter-argument as it is a left-wing love fest as you would expect. No mention of any counter-arguments, just a non-stop flood of pro-left news.
As far as distorting the facts or omitting the facts. I cannot see anything that fits that description, but I have not really looked at each story in great detail. I will point out that referencing other left-wing websites as sources for material is a bit feeble.
So overall I would say they are borderline extremists from a political standpoint due tot he fact that they do not discuss counter arguments and only post what they perceive as relevant. I would also go as far as to say that an organisation such as moveon.org would be a magnet for left-wing extremists.
On a side note, moveon.org seem pretty keen to get "donations" from people, if they are not asking for donations they are plugging a book or a movie. not hard to see what their aims are.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I actually agree with you--I'm just wondering where the line is between partisan and extremist.

Here's the thing--both party committees are extremely partisan, right? Neither is particularly interested in hearing opposing viewpoints, and neither is as interested in discussion as they are in putting their own thoughts forward, and yet both parties are considered mainstream, right?

So where's the line? For me, PETA is an extremist group, but Moveon is partisan; the Club for Growth is partisan but the Swifties are extremist. I guess it comes down to what the purpose of the group is, and what they hope to accomplish.

As to the last point, well, it's sad but it's true that politics in the US has become a money game--if you don't have cash, you don't have a seat at the table, so I don't begrudge Moveon asking for cash, just like I don't begrudge any activist group, even the ones I don't agree with, from soliciting for cash. It's necessary to play the game. The Supreme Court said long ago that money=speech in political terms, and as long as that's the case, then I'll support the efforts of Moveon and others like them.

Is there anything inaccurate in that flier?

Well, for one thing Pravda is a state-controlled newspaper. FOX News is privately owned. Then there's this beauty:

This conservative ideology is effectively being packaged in Fox’s “high-tech
tabloid” style, where commentators and reporters are interchangeable, sarcasm and hyperbole commonplace, and fear mongering is the order of the day.

Fear mongering? Sarcasm and hyperbole? Might you elaborate on this? Because I see more fear mongering, sarcasm and hyperbole on this Pravda-style propaganda piece than I've ever seen on FOX.

At least, not since Jeremy Glick was on O'Reilly's show, declaring the Turaki regime a "democratic government". That was a hoot.

The CNN piece you linked has nothing to do with dirty tricks, outright lies or half-truths, and I'd like to see some evidence that Moveon has done any of those things.

The contest was designed to create virulent anti-Bush propaganda that MoveOn could later disown. That "Hitler bit" was only one of these pieces. That contest, thus, in my estimation was a "dirty trick".

Here's some more:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=218
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=201

They seem also involved in the forging of documents related to President Bush's military record:

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

http://cayankee.blogs.com/

You will of course claim to be "shaking with rage" at my untoward and 9of course) utterly false comments. No doubt you have nice, debate-style answers to at least throw doubt on what MoveOn is. All well and good.


Thank you for that information. It does seem then that moveon.org has learnt their craft from the Moore school of creative editing.
As I said in my description of extremist politcal views, the necessity to edit or omit information to "prove" a point is extremism.

So, Incertonia, from the evidence presented I would class moveon.org as extremists.

The CNN piece you linked has nothing to do with dirty tricks, outright lies or half-truths, and I'd like to see some evidence that Moveon has done any of those things.

The contest was designed to create virulent anti-Bush propaganda that MoveOn could later disown. That "Hitler bit" was only one of these pieces. That contest, thus, in my estimation was a "dirty trick".
The contest was a way to look for cheap ads, nothing more. If you want to think of it as a dirty trick, I can't stop you, but I think you're mistaken.

Here's some more:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=218
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=201This is the most convincing part of your argument. At a quick glance, it seems more partisan than extreme to me, but I'll take a closer look and let you know what I think.

They seem also involved in the forging of documents related to President Bush's military record:

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

http://cayankee.blogs.com/

You will of course claim to be "shaking with rage" at my untoward and 9of course) utterly false comments. No doubt you have nice, debate-style answers to at least throw doubt on what MoveOn is. All well and good.There's nothing there that I saw that argues that Moveon had anything to do with the forging of US military documents. In case you didn't notice, I'm not shaking with rage. Like I said, I'll check on the stuff from the Annenberg project, but your firat and last comments seem to be pretty irrelevant.

Is there anything inaccurate in that flier?

Well, for one thing Pravda is a state-controlled newspaper. FOX News is privately owned.

Cute. Never heard of a metaphor, I suppose.

Then there's this beauty:

This conservative ideology is effectively being packaged in Fox’s “high-tech
tabloid” style, where commentators and reporters are interchangeable, sarcasm and hyperbole commonplace, and fear mongering is the order of the day.

Fear mongering? Sarcasm and hyperbole? Might you elaborate on this? Because I see more fear mongering, sarcasm and hyperbole on this Pravda-style propaganda piece than I've ever seen on FOX.

At least, not since Jeremy Glick was on O'Reilly's show, declaring the Turaki regime a "democratic government". That was a hoot.There's been plenty of documentation elsewhere discussing whether or not Fox has a conservative bias. Pointing it out is hardly extreme--even conservative commentators have noted Fox's bias in terms of commentary.

What? I'm a member of an extemist group?




Cool.