NationStates Jolt Archive

moveon.org has released an add showing surrendering soldiers. http://www.drudgereport.com/moveon.htm

Way to Go moveon.org, for surrendering American values to the welfare nation movement.

I don't see what is so scummy about that advert. They are simply pointing out the losses that the war on Iraq has caused.

I don't see what is so scummy about that advert. They are simply pointing out the losses that the war on Iraq has caused.

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.

Just like all the Vietnam vets who get that warm and fuzzy feeling when they remember Swiftvets or what the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000.

You have your own analogy about the ad...good for you. Now tie your analogy to the truth. Or, better yet, if you're going to crucify an organization for running an issue ad, why not talk about both sides of the spectrum?

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support, when it was john kerry who voted against supporting them.

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support, when it was john kerry who voted against supporting them.

lol you ARE a monkey brain aren't you - well at least yer honest

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support, when it was john kerry who voted against supporting them.

Oops, I'm sorry, but you've just spewed political rhetoric that is not true. Thanks for playing!

I don't see what is so scummy about that advert. They are simply pointing out the losses that the war on Iraq has caused.

Same here; who cares? Make your own opinions, folks.

Oops, I'm sorry, but you've just spewed political rhetoric that is not true. Thanks for playing!
You are wrong. And finishing all your posts with "thanks for playing" is not just sad, it is rather idiotic. :)

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.
Sure is gonna suck if that turns out to be an accurate description of events. Lots of military people are describing it in just those terms. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/16/iraq_war/index.html)
Retired Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse -- he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He added: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving [Osama] bin Laden's ends."

...

"I see no ray of light on the horizon at all," said Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College. "The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after World War II in Germany and Japan."

"I don't think that you can kill the insurgency," said W. Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, the top expert on Iraq there. According to Terrill, the anti-U.S. insurgency, centered in the Sunni triangle, and holding several key cities and towns, including Fallujah, is expanding and becoming more capable as a direct consequence of U.S. policy. "We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are X number of insurgents and when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the U.S. presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."

There are more, but I think you get the picture.

I'm more worried about the fact that the Bush camp automatically stamps anyone who disagrees with them as "defeatists" and "anti-American" and "unpatriotic."

I've got news for you, saying we want to change things that are wrong is not defeatist, anti-American, or unpatriotic. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Just like all the Vietnam vets who get that warm and fuzzy feeling when they remember Swiftvets or what the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000.

You have your own analogy about the ad...good for you. Now tie your analogy to the truth. Or, better yet, if you're going to crucify an organization for running an issue ad, why not talk about both sides of the spectrum?

OK. I got one for you. Kerry testifying, under oath, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he personally witnessed and participated in numerous atrocities against Vietnamese civilians. I think its the swift boat vets, along with the Vietnam Vets that feel betrayed by Kerry for his actions. And by the way, I voted for McCain in the primary.

PS - Hermie is my puppet nation.

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support, when it was john kerry who voted against supporting them.

It was Bush who sent them over there without body armor though, wasn't it? I mean, last time I checked, he is the commander in chief.

Hmmm.

And then Kerry voted against one out of several bills for funding and this means he "voted against supporting them," never mind that he was supporting a seperate means of doing just that.

Hmmmm.

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

LIAR

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

oh yeah you got proof of that?

of course you don't... that's because Moveon.org NEVER compared Bush to Hitler.

Kerry should demand that those ads be pulled immediately! Just like the Dems howled Bush should have done in the wake of the Swiftboat ads.

Fair's fair, isn't it?

Yes they did as soon as they put it upt hey quickly had to take it off it happened several months ago i aint lying buddy you just happen to live in a world of illusion.

LIAR
Nope you are

Nope you are
Hey--you've been called on it. I know the story, but obviously you don't, so let's hear you back up your bullshit tale of Moveon's comparison of Bush to Hitler.

Yes they did as soon as they put it upt hey quickly had to take it off it happened several months ago i aint lying buddy you just happen to live in a world of illusion.

you just don't understand what happened clearly.

A moveon participant sent in a video to moveon.org along with thousands of others who were submitting their videos. moveon didnt endorse it and they removed it right away.

Kerry should demand that those ads be pulled immediately! Just like the Dems howled Bush should have done in the wake of the Swiftboat ads.

Fair's fair, isn't it?

The ad isn't really lying, from what I can tell. It is expressing an opinion backed up by certain facts.

It also is not attacking Bush personally.

Kerry should demand that those ads be pulled immediately! Just like the Dems howled Bush should have done in the wake of the Swiftboat ads.

Fair's fair, isn't it?


nope, because the Swiftys were lying - this ad wasn't.

They had a commercial that basically compared Bush as being the same as Hitler. You may have a bad memory but I dont on things as revolting and disrepectful as that.

you just don't understand what happened clearly.

A moveon participant sent in a video to moveon.org along with thousands of others who were submitting their videos. moveon didnt endorse it and they removed it right away.

Yeah and they are still comparing him to Hitler though.

Here's an article which mentions the Moveon.org ad, for one:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040909/pl_nm/campaign_sticker_dc_1

Want more proof? It's out there...

Yeah and they are still comparing him to Hitler though.

where? show me

of course you can't.... got anything of substance to add?

where? show me

of course you can't.... got anything of substance to add?
He never has before--why should he start now?

Hey, you got your proof, true-believer. Want a link proving the sky is blue next? How about one proving the sun sets in the west and rises in the east?

Hey, you got your proof, true-believer. Want a link proving the sky is blue next? How about one proving the sun sets in the west and rises in the east?
The article is wrong. Moveon never aired that commercial. Never. It got play on news channels around the time Moveon was disavowing it and removing it from their website, but they never aired it.

That's but one news report out of several claiming Moveon.org did, indeed, air that commercial briefly. Want to counteract that? Let's see your proof, ace.

Or, would you rather holler, "Did not, did not!" some more?

...Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support...

I completely agree with you. Vote for Bush to continue this wonderful tradition.

The Bush camp said it had used clips from the ads on its Web site that for a short time featured images of Hitler interspersed with those of Kerry and other Democratic candidates that it termed a "coalition of the wild-eyed."

From that article Creepsville posted.

From that article Creepsville posted.

So? The assertion was that Moveon.org never compared Bush to Hitler. I offered up proof that Moveon.org did, indeed, compare Bush to Hitler.

Whether or not the Republicans compared Kerry to Hitler or associated our favorite Dem with Adolph or not wasn't at issue.

That's but one news report out of several claiming Moveon.org did, indeed, air that commercial briefly. Want to counteract that? Let's see your proof, ace.

Or, would you rather holler, "Did not, did not!" some more?

http://moveonvoterfund.org/smear/release.html

ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN
ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS
MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through

Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:


The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.

We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.

Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.

MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn’t seem to embrace the same goals.

nope, because the Swiftys were lying - this ad wasn't.

That's funny! SBV's were lying eh? Prove it. Give me one example of their "lying".

Seems to me that Kerry has changed his story several times where the SBV's have yet to recant anything in their book.

It's also funny that CBS states that even thought their documents were fake that it was the message that was true. But yet they haven't put even a tenth of the effort into the SVB's claims which actually have substance. But that's the liberal media for you.

That's but one news report out of several claiming Moveon.org did, indeed, air that commercial briefly. Want to counteract that? Let's see your proof, ace.

Or, would you rather holler, "Did not, did not!" some more?
Here's a story from, oddly enough Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html) that accurately describes what happened.

MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbon said, "we had no idea the Hitler thing even existed."

The group, which claims to have a network of about 2 million online activists, said that the ad comparing Bush to Hitler was one of the 1,512 submissions from the general public submitted as part of a campaign called Bushin30seconds.com.

MoveOn.org claims the ad was not submitted by an organization and was ultimately removed from the Web site. MoveOn.org noted that the "Hitler" comparison was not among the 15 finalists that are now viewable on the Web.

MoveOn.org released a statement on Monday, saying neither that ad nor another one portraying Hitler and Bush was their ad, "nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."

MoveOn.org noted that those ads were voted down by the group's members and the public, who submitted nearly 3 million critiques while choosing the 15 finalist entries.

"We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process," the statement said. "In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system."

Now, fuck off.

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.
Personally speaking, IMHO, those soldiers in Iraq have died for nothing, and that in the end, Iraq will be a lost cause. Iraq was no threat to the USA, was not involved in the attacks of 9/11 and is now an "occupied" country. It is apparent that most Iraqis would prefer that the US leave "their" country as soon as possible.

So? The assertion was that Moveon.org never compared Bush to Hitler. I offered up proof that Moveon.org did, indeed, compare Bush to Hitler.

Whether or not the Republicans compared Kerry to Hitler or associated our favorite Dem with Adolph or not wasn't at issue.

So, it doesn't matter that the actual Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler, but it does matter that an independent group with a liberal agenda compared Bush to Hitler?

So, it doesn't matter that the actual Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler, but it does matter that an independent group with a liberal agenda compared Bush to Hitler?
Please don't spread the idea that Moveon actually had anything to do with that ad--it's a lie, plain and simple, and has been debunked above.

Bush is like Hitler. Done. LOL.

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support

And? Are you saying he hasn't?

So, it doesn't matter that the actual Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler, but it does matter that an independent group with a liberal agenda compared Bush to Hitler?

The Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler? When was that? (Sorry, I don't watch much TV)

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

Except that the "group" never made that comparison. Nice "research", there.

Now, fuck off.

Classy, ace. But what else would one expect from a snot-nosed leftist? So, you're saying that Moveon.org never aired the ad because the folks over at Moveon.org said that's the case.

All well and good, if you want to believe Moveon.org.

Frankly, I'll stick with the Reuters version.

The Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler? When was that? (Sorry, I don't watch much TV)


The Bush camp said it had used clips from the ads on its Web site that for a short time featured images of Hitler interspersed with those of Kerry and other Democratic candidates that it termed a "coalition of the wild-eyed."

From the article Creepsville posted.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...gn_sticker_dc_1

So, it doesn't matter that the actual Bush campaign compared Kerry to Hitler, but it does matter that an independent group with a liberal agenda compared Bush to Hitler?

Never said it doesn't matter. What I was saying is that Reuters stated Moveon.org did compare Bush to Hitler in an ad that was aired briefly and then pulled to counteract the assertion that Moveon never did such a thing.

Frankly, the Republicans could compare Kerry to Stalin for all I care.

From the article Creepsville posted.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...gn_sticker_dc_1

Thanks.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the smears, name-calling, slander, and mud-slinging on both sides. Why don't Bush and Kerry just grow up? :rolleyes:

Thanks.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the smears, name-calling, slander, and mud-slinging on both sides. Why don't Bush and Kerry just grow up? :rolleyes:

What else do the two have? Their records? If they ran on those, Nader would wind up in office.

Never said it doesn't matter. What I was saying is that Reuters stated Moveon.org did compare Bush to Hitler in an ad that was aired briefly and then pulled to counteract the assertion that Moveon never did such a thing.

Frankly, the Republicans could compare Kerry to Stalin for all I care.

Then why does it matter that MoveOn.org supposedly compared Bush to Hitler?

Classy, ace. But what else would one expect from a snot-nosed leftist? So, you're saying that Moveon.org never aired the ad because the folks over at Moveon.org said that's the case.

All well and good, if you want to believe Moveon.org.

Frankly, I'll stick with the Reuters version.No--Fox News was the one who said Moveon never aired the ad. Look, bub--it ain't easy to air an ad. It costs, and then it has to pass the standards and practices board of the station(s) that will air the ad, because if the FCC doesn't like something about the ad, the stations get the fine for it. CBS refused to air the ad that eventually won the contest, and that one was about as tame as you can find, so you can keep blathering about it if you want, but you're full of shit and anyone with an open mind knows it. Even if Moveon had commissioned an ad that compared Bush to Hitler--and they didn't--it never would have aired because no tv station would ever touch it.

What else do the two have? Their records? If they ran on those, Nader would wind up in office.

True.

Sad, isn't it?

That's funny! SBV's were lying eh? Prove it. Give me one example of their "lying".

Well, there was the guy from the SBV's who got a bronze star for heroism under fire in the same altercation in which he claims there was no enemy fire. If that is true, looks like he should give his medal back - but I haven't seen that happen yet.

There is the fact that some of the members *supported* Kerry's run for senator and now are against him - not really a lie, but certainly makes you wonder about them.

It's also funny that CBS states that even thought their documents were fake that it was the message that was true. But yet they haven't put even a tenth of the effort into the SVB's claims which actually have substance. But that's the liberal media for you.

The SVB's are pissed off about what Kerry did after he came home. They have nothing to demonstrate anything bad about him while he was there - and all the paperwork either shows him as being a good soldier or having a superior officer who "had not known him long enough."

Then why does it matter that MoveOn.org supposedly compared Bush to Hitler?

It doesn't. What does matter, however, is that they're now denying it. Hence, they're liars.

No--Fox News was the one who said Moveon never aired the ad. Look, bub--it ain't easy to air an ad. It costs, and then it has to pass the standards and practices board of the station(s) that will air the ad, because if the FCC doesn't like something about the ad, the stations get the fine for it. CBS refused to air the ad that eventually won the contest, and that one was about as tame as you can find, so you can keep blathering about it if you want, but you're full of shit and anyone with an open mind knows it. Even if Moveon had commissioned an ad that compared Bush to Hitler--and they didn't--it never would have aired because no tv station would ever touch it.

Actually, that was Fox news reporting a statement from Moveon.org.

Hey, if you want to say Reuters was wrong, then just say, "Reuters was wrong."

Frankly, it's fun watching you get irritated. Keep it up. I've got half an hour left at the office and some time to kill. You're entertaining.

True.

Sad, isn't it?

Yep. Getting too worked up defending either of those bums is a waste of time. Americans deserve a hell of a lot better than either Bush or Kerry.

That's funny! SBV's were lying eh? Prove it. Give me one example of their "lying".

Seems to me that Kerry has changed his story several times where the SBV's have yet to recant anything in their book.

It's also funny that CBS states that even thought their documents were fake that it was the message that was true. But yet they haven't put even a tenth of the effort into the SVB's claims which actually have substance. But that's the liberal media for you.


I guess it's funny to you religious fox news viewers who havent seen all the refutations. Swifty ads lies have been refuted anough times on this board you can do a search if you like.

Yep. Getting too worked up defending either of those bums is a waste of time. Americans deserve a hell of a lot better than either Bush or Kerry.

My friend, I couldn't agree more!

Who would you pick for President? I'd go for Michael Peroutka.

I don't see what's so scummy about our ad. Its true, ya know.

Actually, that was Fox news reporting a statement from Moveon.org.

Hey, if you want to say Reuters was wrong, then just say, "Reuters was wrong."

Frankly, it's fun watching you get irritated. Keep it up. I've got half an hour left at the office and some time to kill. You're entertaining.
I've already said Reuters was wrong, and I think I've given substantial reason for that statement, but let me add one more personal piece.

I followed this situation from the beginning because my girlfriend wrote the dialogue for one of the ads that made the finals. It didn't win, but it was one of the top 15. I watched over a hundred of the 1500 that were in the contest--my girlfriend watched three times that number--and I saw the Hitler ad in the contest. Its ratings were among the poorest of any of the ads--it had no chance in hell of ever making the finals, much less of being aired by Moveon. Moveon pulled it from the contest before the final 15 were even announced, so it never had a chance to make it on the air.

So let me make this clear--Reuters is wrong. Moveon did not air the ad, and had nothing to do with the making of the ad.

My friend, I couldn't agree more!

Who would you pick for President? I'd go for Michael Peroutka.

I was a McCain supporter in the 2000 campaign, and still wish he would have gotten the nomination.

That's funny! SBV's were lying eh? Prove it. Give me one example of their "lying".

Seems to me that Kerry has changed his story several times where the SBV's have yet to recant anything in their book.

It's also funny that CBS states that even thought their documents were fake that it was the message that was true. But yet they haven't put even a tenth of the effort into the SVB's claims which actually have substance. But that's the liberal media for you.

Ok, if you need proof that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were lying, I don't even know where to begin. Do you read newspapers? NY Times? Washington Post? L.A. Times? Honestly, there is tons of proof out there that most of what they said was pure gibberish. There's a video with the guy who now says Kerry never took enemy fire, standing next to Kerry saying Kerry and him were indeed under fire and that Kerry acted courageously.

Seriously, just because you're uneducated, or too lazy to read a national newspaper, don't make us do all the research. If you want to, pay the $2.95 to look into NY Times' archives and check out the articles or editorials on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If you want, do it for the LA Times or the Washington Post.

My friend, I couldn't agree more!

Who would you pick for President? I'd go for Michael Peroutka.


reverend Al Sharpton is the best candidate ever .he should be president .

Creepsville... you just got moded. MODED!!!!!!!!!!

To clear things us, Moveon.org never aired the ad. CNN, FOXNEWS, CBS, NBC, and nearly any other broadcasting news show did, thats probably where you got the idea that it was on the air

To clear things us, Moveon.org never aired the ad. CNN, FOXNEWS, CBS, NBC, and nearly any other broadcasting news show did, thats probably where you got the idea that it was on the air


I still don't get why people think we did that ad. I saw it myself and it was not only exaggerated but poorly made . Dam republicans will try and use anything to diffamate liberal groups .

Let me add this, Creepsville. I was absolutely floored when I read the Reuters article you posted. It's recent, too, so there's no excuse for the inaccuracy, but believe me, it is completely and totally inaccurate.

I still don't get why people think we did that ad. I saw it myself and it was not only exaggerated but poorly made . Dam republicans will try and use anything to diffamate liberal groups .

It was probably made by a Replicon in the first place, just to point to it to try to discredit the opposition. I don't put anything past those lowlifes anymore.

Way to Go moveon.org, for surrendering American values to the welfare nation movement.
You say them as if they're incompatible. Perhaps you are so brainwashed that you think "Republican values = American values".

What has welfare got to do with the Iraq war anyway?

It was probably made by a Replicon in the first place, just to point to it to try to discredit the opposition. I don't put anything past those lowlifes anymore.

you're probably right. No liberal in their right mind would do something like that

you're probably right. No liberal in their right mind would do something like that
Unfortunately, a few too many liberals aren't in their right mind.

I guess it's funny to you religious fox news viewers who havent seen all the refutations. Swifty ads lies have been refuted anough times on this board you can do a search if you like.
Notice that we say it has been refuted twice, yet offer no evidence. Sheep.

Notice that we say it has been refuted twice, yet offer no evidence. Sheep.
Be honest--is there any evidence we could offer you that you would believe? I imagine I could bring you the signed confessions of John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi and Larry Thurlow saying "We made all that shit up" and you wouldn't believe it, so why don't you quit trying to act all high and mighty and no one will get hurt.

I agree Incertonia...

and that is why I finally put someone on my ignore list

This message is hidden because MunkeBrain is on your ignore list.


ahhh much better now that I can worry about people who actually have somethign to contribute to these debates and not waste brain cells on verbal diarreah.

I agree Incertonia...

and that is why I finally put someone on my ignore list




ahhh much better now that I can worry about people who actually have somethign to contribute to these debates and not waste brain cells on verbal diarreah.
I try to ignore people, but I can't help myself--I always un-ignore them because I want to see what idiocy they're spouting this time. I'd be better off if I could resist the temptation, I know, but I just can't help myself.

I try to ignore people, but I can't help myself--I always un-ignore them because I want to see what idiocy they're spouting this time. I'd be better off if I could resist the temptation, I know, but I just can't help myself.


lol, I'm the same way and will probably un-ignore him/her when I feel like arguing again with those who are about 12 cans short of a six pack like Munkeboy here.

lol, I'm the same way and will probably un-ignore him/her when I feel like arguing again with those who are about 12 cans short of a six pack like Munkeboy here.
But......

no. 6 packs only have...... 7 beers. Imaginary beers? Can you get just as drunk off of them?

I guess it depends on your definition of "aired". Traditionally it applied to broadcast tv. Broadcast waves going through the "air". So maybe that way nothing on cable is "aired". Nothing over the internet is "aired" either. So in that way Reuters is indeed wrong.

However, Moveon.org did indeed sponsor that contest.. and left that clip on their website for a significant amount of time.

What I find most intriguing about moveonpac.org is such.

Swiftboat ads were bad and evil and they had to be removed from the air because they were personal attacks and so on and so fourth. Yet the moveonpac.org ads are okay. Does anyone else see a problem with this? And yes they are personal attacks as well. I'm not a fan of Bush but I think that they should play fairly here rather than be very hypocritical.

But......

no. 6 packs only have...... 7 beers. Imaginary beers? Can you get just as drunk off of them?

I was referring to the negative beers - sorta like dark matter

What I find most intriguing about moveonpac.org is such.

Swiftboat ads were bad and evil and they had to be removed from the air because they were personal attacks and so on and so fourth. Yet the moveonpac.org ads are okay. Does anyone else see a problem with this? And yes they are personal attacks as well. I'm not a fan of Bush but I think that they should play fairly here rather than be very hypocritical.

no it's okay to attack the bad people by calling them bad people as long as you are using facts or opinions.

but you shouldnt attack people with outright lies liek the swifties were doing.

What I find most intriguing about moveonpac.org is such.

Swiftboat ads were bad and evil and they had to be removed from the air because they were personal attacks and so on and so fourth. Yet the moveonpac.org ads are okay. Does anyone else see a problem with this? And yes they are personal attacks as well. I'm not a fan of Bush but I think that they should play fairly here rather than be very hypocritical.That's not the reason I opposed the Swiftboat ads. I opposed them because they were full of inaccuracies on statements of fact (Letson treating Kerry's wound, or the boats not being under enemy fire for instance) and were proven to be so time and time again. This Moveon ad makes statements of opinion, but unless I misread the script, there's nothing there that could be called unfactual.

We could argue about the underlying premise, and that's a conversation that would be worth having, but that's a different argument than the one about the Swift Boat ads.

The crapheads that belong to moveon.org are insinuating that Bush has left the troops to die in a quagmire without support, when it was john kerry who voted against supporting them.

No, Kerry voted to support them, but he was overruled, and the Republicans version of the bill, the one that supported Halliburton instead, was passed.

Republican Bill + Republicans Passing it (despite Kerry's vote against) + Pentagon's malfeasance = Republicans to blame for not supporting our troops.

This is fact. The republicans got their version of the bill passed. The troops did not get their armor. How is this Kerry's fault????????

I was referring to the negative beers - sorta like dark matter
Beers that are the opposite of beers? Bottle it and sell it as "Sober Aids"!

No, Kerry voted to support them, but he was overruled, and the Republicans version of the bill, the one that supported Halliburton instead, was passed.

Republican Bill + Republicans Passing it (despite Kerry's vote against) + Pentagon's malfeasance = Republicans to blame for not supporting our troops.

This is fact. The republicans got their version of the bill passed. The troops did not get their armor. How is this Kerry's fault????????

Munkeboy got MODED!

MODED

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.


That's just it though. They may not think the war is in vain, but we sure as hell can see that it is. We failed in everything, including the extraction of oil (which was my suspicion for the reasons to go to war in the first place). All in all, those poor soldiers are fighting and dying in vain.

When I lived in Germany (beacause my mother and father work for the military) I got a job at a Subway on Landshtuhl hospital, which is where many of our wounded get sent to. Every day, I got to hear them talk about how futile the war is. Some of the soldiers believe in the war, but the ones I talked to, the ones that were doing the fighting, said that they could see no end in sight, and it was a lost cause to go in there.

I go with the idea that if the Bush admin. even gave a wit of thought about how to reconstruct Iraq after they had blown it up they would have rethought their plans of just going in and hoping for the best. That seems like fatally stupid optimism to me.

Notice that we say it has been refuted twice, yet offer no evidence. Sheep.

Listen FoB - I watched it get discredited live with my own two eyes on MSNBC on Hardball with Chris Matthews, by the time he was done with these guys, they all looked like bitter babbling fools who couldn't even keep their story straight between each other and Matthews clarly showed where they had not been honest.


Incertonia - Please don't tell people to "Fuck off" I know people can be frustrating, but we must refrain :)

You know I don't know why people think the media is liberally biased. In fact nearly all the major cable news channels and major braodcast stations are run by some of the largest corporations on the planet like Disney and GE.

Listen FoB - I watched it get discredited live with my own two eyes on MSNBC on Hardball with Chris Matthews, by the time he was done with these guys, they all looked like bitter babbling fools who couldn't even keep their story straight between each other and Matthews clarly showed where they had not been honest.


Incertonia - Please don't tell people to "Fuck off" I know people can be frustrating, but we must refrain :)

whooooh, Monke is FoB?

That...makes a hell of a lot of sense, actually o_O

whooooh, Monke is FoB?

That...makes a hell of a lot of sense, actually o_O
No kidding. And okay, Steph. I'll calm down. Besides, didn't you hear? I'm going to the Giants game tonight--maybe watch Barry bonds make a little more history.

That's not the reason I opposed the Swiftboat ads. I opposed them because they were full of inaccuracies on statements of fact (Letson treating Kerry's wound, or the boats not being under enemy fire for instance) and were proven to be so time and time again. This Moveon ad makes statements of opinion, but unless I misread the script, there's nothing there that could be called unfactual.

We could argue about the underlying premise, and that's a conversation that would be worth having, but that's a different argument than the one about the Swift Boat ads.

See what moveonpac.org fails to say in this latest ad, with the telling of Bush sending out troops without propper equippment, understrength, etc. should be realized that this military has been cut by Clinton so severely and deployed so much more than ever since 1991 that no matter where we go now we are undermanned and ill-equiped.

Maybe no one has noticed but the US is losing the war in Iraq. The fact the "WAR" itself was so short and fairly easy should have immediatly sent off alarm bells. Iraqi militants were going abandon Saddam and let of Iraq fall because that would mean more US troops would arrive, therefore more US troops to kill. They hate Americans, these militants, and don't care if you have a family or are just trying to make a living. They wanted more Americans in Iraq so they could have more to kill. Given this obvious evidence, Bush continues to send in more troops and tell others they can't go home for another few months or a year. He's condemming them to death. The US will not defeat these militants in the forseable future but I'm sure has plans to send more troops in to "stabalize" the country and to keep Iraqis "free" (even though Iraq wasn't about the citizens or making sure it had a good government, it was for oil and so George jr could finish what George sr couldn't). I mean, dammit George, don't you care about the troops?

See what moveonpac.org fails to say in this latest ad, with the telling of Bush sending out troops without propper equippment, understrength, etc. should be realized that this military has been cut by Clinton so severely and deployed so much more than ever since 1991 that no matter where we go now we are undermanned and ill-equiped.Even if that's an accurate assessment--and I don't think it is--wasn't it then horribly irresponsible for Bush to send the troops in such a decrepit state?

It's hard to say what this is, really. From the pic quality I can get, it looks more like the soldier pictured is wading through something, possibly water. I get that from the shadow cast by the soldier, it appears to only be cast by the upper half of his body. The lower half of his body (and related shadow) isn't there at all. I also couldn't get the ad text to a readable state. Plus soldiers usually (I think) put their hands over their heads when they surrender, not hold their weapon over their heads, since that's likely to get them shot by whoever they're surrendering to because they can still bring the weapon to bear. Since I can't read the text, the only thing I can say about the ad is that if it's trying to depict an American (and even that's not clear) soldier surrendering, then it is misleading & should be pulled, because that's not what it appears the soldier is doing. This is my opinion, based on the image I can see. So reserve flaming for after I find a better quality pic, if you please. :p
As to MoveOn.org, I couldn't find anything about comparing Bush to Hitler. But plenty of Dems have, and I'm not refering to official spokespeople, so don't ask me to name names.

{PS Prismatic Dragons is the puppet nation of The Far Green Meadow. It's just easier to say! :) }

Even if that's an accurate assessment--and I don't think it is--wasn't it then horribly irresponsible for Bush to send the troops in such a decrepit state?

It is an accurate statement, Clinton cut military funding quite a bit during his administration. Bush has also been restoring some of that funding, so no, it's not irresponsible.

See what moveonpac.org fails to say in this latest ad, with the telling of Bush sending out troops without propper equippment, understrength, etc. should be realized that this military has been cut by Clinton so severely and deployed so much more than ever since 1991 that no matter where we go now we are undermanned and ill-equiped.

Even assuming your point about Clinton is correct, then how does this excuse Bush from starting a war of choice with and undermanned, unequipped, and underfunded army against an opponent that was no threat to the U.S.? Wouldn't a good leader wait until we had enough troops, equipment and funding?

I mean, if Bush had waitied for Saddam to even so much as fart outside the borders of Iraq, Bush could have gotten international support to suppliment his supposedly undermanned/underequipped/underfunded army.

Even assuming your point about Clinton is correct, then how does this excuse Bush from starting a war of choice with and undermanned, unequipped, and underfunded army against an opponent that was no threat to the U.S.? Wouldn't a good leader wait until we had enough troops, equipment and funding?

I mean, if Bush had waitied for Saddam to even so much as fart outside the borders of Iraq, Bush could have gotten international support to suppliment his supposedly undermanned/underequipped/underfunded army.

Clinton's military cuts and massive deployments are far beyond correct. That's a fact. Look at the numbers, look at the closings, look at the deployments to where, for what purpose, etc. Peacemaking and such were a lot of them. The idea of us having to few forces is a crappy point and the fact that we have what 100,000 still deployed over there shows how much manpower is needed. However, there is nothing short of a draft to get numbers that high that fast. We're stretched very thin. What Bush should have said is "We're going after Saddam for WMD and for civil rights abuses" like we said against Slobo and Somalia. That would have been smarter.

It is an accurate statement, Clinton cut military funding quite a bit during his administration. Bush has also been restoring some of that funding, so no, it's not irresponsible.

You are saying that he sent them to a war ill-equipped and that it isn't irresponsible?

Clinton did not gut the military. He merely did not continue spending as if it was teh cold-war. Big difference. Why would we need to flood money into an overbloated military in times of peace? Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? Clinton in fact brought the military into teh information age and made them highly effective, thus allowing them to carry out missions quicker and will less troops and therefore casualties.

unmanned drones anyone?

You are saying that he sent them to a war ill-equipped and that it isn't irresponsible?

Clinton did not gut the military. He merely did not continue spending as if it was teh cold-war. Big difference. Why would we need to flood money into an overbloated military in times of peace? Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? Clinton in fact brought the military into teh information age and made them highly effective, thus allowing them to carry out missions quicker and will less troops and therefore casualties.

unmanned drones anyone?

Our force size at the start of OEF was 1/4 that it was in ODS. I'd say that a 75% slash is a gut.

You are saying that he sent them to a war ill-equipped and that it isn't irresponsible?

Clinton did not gut the military. He merely did not continue spending as if it was teh cold-war. Big difference. Why would we need to flood money into an overbloated military in times of peace? Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? Clinton in fact brought the military into teh information age and made them highly effective, thus allowing them to carry out missions quicker and will less troops and therefore casualties.

unmanned drones anyone?
Clinton did not gut the military? So when I witnessed the RIF's and the early retirements and the refusal to let people re-enlist, that never happened?
Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? What praytell is enough? And why wouldnt you give pay raises to military when civilian counterparts are getting pay raises?
Clinton did nothing for the military, and earned the disrespect of every military member I had the pleasure to serve with.

again... with better equipment and our forces brought into the information age... we need less troops (especially in peace time) to do even more work and much more effectively.

Thats not gutting thats smart economic and strategic planning.

You are wrong. And finishing all your posts with "thanks for playing" is not just sad, it is rather idiotic. :)

No, I'm sorry, but its more idiotic to spew rhetoric when you aren't sure what you're speaking of. The vote you refer to was for a draft of the funding. The fact that you never took the time to understand this shows that you'd prefer to misinform rather than tell the truth.

For the record, I only say Thanks for Playing to those people who are so simpleminded that they can't comprehend even the slightest nuances of life.

Thanks for playing!

Clinton did not gut the military? So when I witnessed the RIF's and the early retirements and the refusal to let people re-enlist, that never happened?
Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? What praytell is enough? And why wouldnt you give pay raises to military when civilian counterparts are getting pay raises?
Clinton did nothing for the military, and earned the disrespect of every military member I had the pleasure to serve with.

If you went into the military to get rich, then you picked the wrong course. The military is and has long been well taken care of. If there was no future in the military noone would have joined. Quit being bitter about not getting a raise. You were never in danger of being homeless or hungry from your pay. I'm sure your family was well taken care of too, considering you have a family (wife, kid).

No, I'm sorry, but its more idiotic to spew rhetoric when you aren't sure what you're speaking of. The vote you refer to was for a draft of the funding. The fact that you never took the time to understand this shows that you'd prefer to misinform rather than tell the truth.

For the record, I only say Thanks for Playing to those people who are so simpleminded that they can't comprehend even the slightest nuances of life.

Thanks for playing!
*rimshot*

I don't give a shit whatever the hell your political stance may be, but by showing United States Soldiers surrendering, it is very easy to spot what kind of a message you are trying to convey.

Leave the patriotic men & women serving this country out of politics.

If you went into the military to get rich, then you picked the wrong course. The military is and has long been well taken care of. If there was no future in the military noone would have joined. Quit being bitter about not getting a raise. You were never in danger of being homeless or hungry from your pay. I'm sure your family was well taken care of too, considering you have a family (wife, kid).
Do you know people who join the military to get rich? What even makes you think that?
And what do you base your assertion that the military is and has long been well taken care of? Are you only concerned with your own personal future? Pretty selfish, imo. Im not bitter about getting a raise... as I said in another thread my family and I made do with what we had. Which is a long way from being "well taken care of".
And I did know people who were in danger of being hungry while on military pay.

I don't give a shit whatever the hell your political stance may be, but by showing United States Soldiers surrendering, it is very easy to spot what kind of a message you are trying to convey.

Leave the patriotic men & women serving this country out of politics.

I agree, the military should NEVER be used as a backdrop for political gain. For example, landing on an aircraft carrier and using the fine men and women.....ooh, wait a second here.

Its a good thing that Republicans would never stoop to cheap tactics to win an election. They certainly would never lie or try to scare people into voting for them....or...would they?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_mail

Uh oh....

I don't give a shit whatever the hell your political stance may be, but by showing United States Soldiers surrendering, it is very easy to spot what kind of a message you are trying to convey.

Leave the patriotic men & women serving this country out of politics.

They're not surrendering, they're sinking in a quagmire. It's called a metaphore. Get over it.

again... with better equipment and our forces brought into the information age... we need less troops (especially in peace time) to do even more work and much more effectively.

Thats not gutting thats smart economic and strategic planning.

Peace-time? Peace-time? HA! Peace is not the absence of war. I don't think I can cite on paper when the last era of peace was...certainly pre-WWI.

Hell post WWI saw a lot of fighting in the Pacific with Japan and Russia and China and Korea. Plus you had Italy in Africa and Germany in Austria. Then post WWII it's been everywhere.

Peace? I've never known such a thing nor will I ever until the entirity of the human race ceases to exist. If you think that post-CW was peaceful you need to open the eyes a little. Civil Wars in Africa raged on and still do. South American fighting was crazy as well. Middle East fighting and all the fighting in Chechnya.

They're not surrendering, they're sinking in a quagmire. It's called a metaphore. Get over it.

That weapon in the air is a sign of defeat as well. During ODS, Iraqi soldiers were ordered to hold their weapons over their head in such a fashion. It is a common sign of non-aggression, just like a white flag.

Its a good thing that Republicans would never stoop to cheap tactics to win an election. They certainly would never lie or try to scare people into voting for them....or...would they?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_mail

Uh oh....

Democrats are just as guilty in election fraud. Perhaps a little more widespread throughout history. Remember in the olden days they used to promise alcohol to the homeless for votes. Lots of voter fraud with the Dems.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-192807c.html

But I still don't know why people are surprised about this and why they whine? The popular vote DOES NOT decide the presidency. The electoral college does and thank god for that because if idiots can't press the right buttons on a voting machine then they shouldn't be allowed to choose the president and no that was not a complicated system if you had an ounce of common sense and read the directions first.

And FYI Bush did win Florida last election:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/nader_3

I may not like the guy but I have to give him due when it is necessary.

They're not surrendering, they're sinking in a quagmire. It's called a metaphore. Get over it.

The kind of shit you yourself are protecting is exactly the kind of propaganda an opponent in a war against you would use.

Great to see you care for the troops protecting your rights, as well as the rights for the folks on moveon.org, to slander them.

.....they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain.Only an Idiot President would have Landed us in that Quagmire...most The Widows and Parents of Dead Soldiers feel that their sons/husbands died for no-good-reason...

This Preemtive War is not good for America....This war is against American Best Interests...

I dont expect you to agree with me...I expect you to vote for Bush..and to help him expand the war...and I expect you to enroll ASAP...

I have one question for Incertonia or any other member of moveon.org:

Was the ad comparing Bush to Hitler posted on the moveon.org website?

I have one question for Incertonia or any other member of moveon.org:

Was the ad comparing Bush to Hitler posted on the moveon.org website?
Ah man, just read the thread you lazy bastard. It has context and everything.

Ah man, just read the thread you lazy bastard. It has context and everything.

I have read the thread. I am getting to a point as soon as someone answers the questions in the context I am asking them.

I have read the thread. I am getting to a point as soon as someone answers the questions in the context I am asking them.
No, your just tarding over the same old crap. Make your lame ass point and move on...it's pretty obvoius where your going with it and it's been handled in the posts that have already treaded all over this topic.....weak sauce.

I have one question for Incertonia or any other member of moveon.org:

Was the ad comparing Bush to Hitler posted on the moveon.org website?
Im not a member of anything....but i can tell you this:

lately...I compare Bush to Hitler....every day.

Im not a member of anything....but i can tell you this:

lately...I compare Bush to Hitler....every day.

Good for you. Unfortunately it does not answer my question. As Incertonia is a member of moveon.org I would appeciate if they, or another member, answer the question I have asked.

No, your just tarding over the same old crap. Make your lame ass point and move on...it's pretty obvoius where your going with it and it's been handled in the posts that have already treaded all over this topic.....weak sauce.

Ah, so now you a psychic? I am asking a quesion of moveon.org members, Incertonia being one I have conversed with previously. Oddly enough he too dismissed my questioning before actually engaging in discussion.

If you have nothing to contribute then please refrain from your senseless insults.

Ah, so now you a psychic? I am asking a quesion of moveon.org members, Incertonia being one I have conversed with previously. Oddly enough he too dismissed my questioning before actually engaging in discussion.

If you have nothing to contribute then please refrain from your senseless insults.
Okay slugger, I'm a member, too.

ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN
ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS
MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through

Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:


The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.

We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.

Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.

MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn’t seem to embrace the same goals.
rif

Incertonia - Please don't tell people to "Fuck off" I know people can be frustrating, but we must refrain :)
What, no official warning with the thundering Mod font, or unwarented deleation with no warning?

Listen FoB - I watched it get discredited live with my own two eyes on MSNBC on Hardball with Chris Matthews, by the time he was done with these guys, they all looked like bitter babbling fools who couldn't even keep their story straight between each other and Matthews clarly showed where they had not been honest.

Can you prove exactly any of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth allegations that have been disproven?

Okay slugger, I'm a member, too.


rif

So the ads comparing Bush to Hitler were in fact posted on a moveon.org website. Thank you for confirming that. Moveon.org apologised for letting the ads slip through their screening process meaning that the ads were looked at and posted on the website.

Unless I have misunderstood what they were saying?

moveon.org has released an add showing surrendering soldiers. http://www.drudgereport.com/moveon.htm

Way to Go moveon.org, for surrendering American values to the welfare nation movement.

Drudge Report...there's a credible source. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Can you prove exactly any of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth allegations that have been disproven?

Every one of them.

we dun wanna hear your political crap. start a topic thats actually intresting

Candadians

So the ads comparing Bush to Hitler were in fact posted on a moveon.org website. Thank you for confirming that. Moveon.org apologised for letting the ads slip through their screening process meaning that the ads were looked at and posted on the website.

Unless I have misunderstood what they were saying?

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.
rif

we dun wanna hear your political crap. Change the channels...go back to FoxNews :D

(Looks at the moveon.org ad) I aint surprised this coming from a group that consider Bush to Hitler when their nothing alike.

OMFG you idiot, we have discussed this issue so many times you blind idiot. That was an entry that was immediately removed from the competition. Stop being a manipulitive cow.

The ad doesn't show surrendering soldiers.. it shows a soldier sinking into the desert sand, and trying to keep his rifle up.... it's the same thing soldiers do when wading through water - do you think that footage of soldiers holding their rifles above their heads when crossing rivers is footage of surrendering soldiers?

Get a grip. the "surrendering soldiers" line was put up by the administration folks because it is definitely a scene that americans would find horrible, and not want to even imagine. Knowing this, they painted the ad as being surrendering soldiers, before most of us ever saw it - and then people see what they're expecting to see!

And as far as the moveon.org ads (which weren't moveon.org ads) that showed bush and hitler - get a grip again people and use your brains instead of knee-jerk reactionism. The ads were two of literally thousands. Thousands. that were entered, and most posted to the website.

The hypocrisy of republicans decrying these ads, when they were not made, written, produced, or otherwise affiliated with moveon.org, other then being entered into a contest - is absolutely nauseating.

They sit and cry that these "traitors" have compared Bush to Hitler, but they had no problem with an ad run in Georgia during the 2002 campaign that morphed then Senator Max Cleland, a veteran's, face into Osama Bin Laden !!!!

Come on people! stop doing the "my side" "your side" bulls**t !! Use your brains. If my fellow Americans don't get it together, I might just move to Canada or England - just like so many of them have told me to do, simply because I didn't agree with *their* particular politics or ideology.

What has our nation become? It seems to be a bunch of reactionist, hypocritical mud slingers on all sides.

Say it ain't so!

rif

I didn't ask if they sponsored the ads or supported their sentiments. I asked if they were published on their website. The answer to that, as conformed by your previous quote, is yes. Did they post these ads after viewing them, again, from your previous quote, the answer to that is also yes.

Just like in a court of law, a lawyer can make a statement, then retract it. However, the fact that the statement was made influences those that heard it. In the case of a court, that would be the jury. In the case of these ads, the public that viewed them on the website.

Who cares? Most Americans rightly identify moveon.org as a fringe leftist group and ignore their ads. They spent $60 million on airtime already with little visible effect; the Swiftees spent less than a million with far better results.

Keep on raving moveon. Waste more of Soros' money. :)

I didn't ask if they sponsored the ads or supported their sentiments. I asked if they were published on their website. The answer to that, as conformed by your previous quote, is yes. Did they post these ads after viewing them, again, from your previous quote, the answer to that is also yes.

Just like in a court of law, a lawyer can make a statement, then retract it. However, the fact that the statement was made influences those that heard it. In the case of a court, that would be the jury. In the case of these ads, the public that viewed them on the website.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads

I guess I am psychic, because this is exactly where I thought you where going with this, but the fact remains that someone in the public submited the ad, and moveon.org and it's members not only voted it down but-

agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste

so wheres the influence?
http://comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/unbranded/s/unbranded-stretch-armstrong.jpg

I would argue that it is constantly presenting this distortion of moveon.org to avoid having to discuss the actual issues at hand...counsler.....

OMFG you idiot, we have discussed this issue so many times you blind idiot. That was an entry that was immediately removed from the competition. Stop being a manipulitive cow.
Stop using insults and name calling to make your point.

It wasnt immediately removed from the competition. It lasted a significant amount of time. (enough time for other sites to link to it and have people go there to view it)

If it was so out of line that Moveon.org wouldnt use it at all, why was it posted on the site in the first place?

Can you prove exactly any of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth allegations that have been disproven?

With a bit of luck we won't be writing much more about these idiots. The past week has seen most of the organization's claims debunked and many of the members have thoroughly contradicted themselves. Not that you'd know it if you've been watching cable news. So let's do a quick recap of some of the week's more important stories:

*Alfred French, who signed an affidavit accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his war record, is in trouble after it was revealed that he didn't serve with Kerry and did not actually witness (http://www.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x46616&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530) his behavior in Vietnam. Lying in affidavits is obviously not a good idea when you're a county prosecutor. Oh yes, he also got caught lying about an extra-marital affair (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109360837947360.xml).

* After Ken Cordier's departure from Team Bush (Cordier, a former vice-chair (http://www.unc.edu/%7Echaos1/documents/vets_for_bush.pdf) of Veterans for Bush/Cheney) it was the turn of Benjamin Ginsberg to quit (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10572967%255E1702,00.html) a few weeks ago when it was revealed that not only was he a lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign, he was a lawyer for - surprise - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

* Jim Russell (who, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," was actually there the day that Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the river) composed a stirring letter (http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt) contradicting their story. "The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed," he wrote.

* Larry Thurlow signed an affidavit accusing Kerry of lying about being under fire when he rescued Rassmann, saying "no return fire occurred.... I never heard a shot." This directly contradicts his own Bronze Star citation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html). But a third Bronze Star was awarded that day, to another Swift Boat skipper, Robert Lambert. Lambert's recently-released citation says that (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692) "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and that Lambert "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises his "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire." Thurlow claims that Kerry faked the citations by falsely describing events to superior officers. But Kerry is not the eyewitness on Thurlow's citation - Lambert is. Can it be any more obvious that Thurlow is lying?

* John O'Neill has been making a big stink lately over whether John Kerry was in Cambodia or not during the Vietnam War. It appears that nobody - including Kerry - is really sure. But O'Neill - as usual - made himself look like a complete ass by claiming (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html) to CNN that he (O'Neill) had never been in Cambodia and in fact it was impossible to cross the border by river. Whoops! It turns out that O'Neill appears on an audio tape recorded in the Oval Office telling the complete opposite to Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." NIXON: "In a swift boat?" O'NEILL: "Yes, sir." Ah, credibility. We hardly knew ye.

Here's a link that shows the connections and the contradictions of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the Bush/Cheney campaign and what they have previously said about John Kerry's war record. The link can be found here. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html)

Now don't make me post this anymore. You know the Swift Boat Liars were lying all along. This just proves it, once again.

Hopefully you'll take your head out of your ass and join us in the real world.

Every one of them.
Wasn't addressing you, but okay, tough guy. Do it. Prove one lie by the Swift Boat Vets.

Wasn't addressing you, but okay, tough guy. Do it. Prove one lie by the Swift Boat Vets.

I just proved several lies. ;)

" During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads"

I guess I am psychic, because this is exactly where I thought you where going with this, but the fact remains that someone in the public submited the ad, and moveon.org and it's members not only voted it down but-

" agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste"

so wheres the influence?
http://comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/unbranded/s/unbranded-stretch-armstrong.jpg

I would argue that it is constantly presenting this distortion of moveon.org to avoid having to discuss the actual issues at hand...counsler.....

And the fact remains that moveon.org published the ads knowing their content, then removed them after people complained. Whether they claim to support the ads contents or whether they created the ads is irrelevant.

*Alfred French, who signed an affidavit accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his war record, is in trouble after it was revealed that he didn't serve with Kerry and did not actually witness (http://www.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x46616&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530) his behavior in Vietnam. Lying in affidavits is obviously not a good idea when you're a county prosecutor. Oh yes, he also got caught lying about an extra-marital affair (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109360837947360.xml).One out of 240 did not serve with Kerry. congratualtions. Oh yeah, and Don't open up the extra-marital affair can of worms.

* After Ken Cordier's departure from Team Bush (Cordier, a former vice-chair (http://www.unc.edu/%7Echaos1/documents/vets_for_bush.pdf) of Veterans for Bush/Cheney) it was the turn of Benjamin Ginsberg to quit (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10572967%255E1702,00.html) a few weeks ago when it was revealed that not only was he a lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign, he was a lawyer for - surprise - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Many of the Kerry campaigns lawyers also work for 527s and pacs that attack Bush, contrary to law.

* Jim Russell (who, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," was actually there the day that Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the river) composed a stirring letter (http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt) contradicting their story. "The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed," he wrote.Another Partisan loser lies thru his teeth. Many of the Swift Boat VEts for Truth were there when Kerry dump Rassmun of his boat, Fled, than came back when he realized there was no enemy fire coming their way.

* Larry Thurlow signed an affidavit accusing Kerry of lying about being under fire when he rescued Rassmann, saying "no return fire occurred.... I never heard a shot." This directly contradicts his own Bronze Star citation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html). But a third Bronze Star was awarded that day, to another Swift Boat skipper, Robert Lambert. Lambert's recently-released citation says that (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692) "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and that Lambert "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises his "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire." Thurlow claims that Kerry faked the citations by falsely describing events to superior officers. But Kerry is not the eyewitness on Thurlow's citation - Lambert is. Can it be any more obvious that Thurlow is lying? But who wrote the award? Was it Lambert? All the awards that day rely on Kerry's lies.

* John O'Neill has been making a big stink lately over whether John Kerry was in Cambodia or not during the Vietnam War. It appears that nobody - including Kerry - is really sure. But O'Neill - as usual - made himself look like a complete ass by claiming (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html) to CNN that he (O'Neill) had never been in Cambodia and in fact it was impossible to cross the border by river. Whoops! It turns out that O'Neill appears on an audio tape recorded in the Oval Office telling the complete opposite to Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." NIXON: "In a swift boat?" O'NEILL: "Yes, sir." Ah, credibility. We hardly knew ye. Well, where is the lie? Kerry said the same thing, but leftist idiots say he wasn't lying. Doesn't change the fact that Kerry is a liar about Vietnam, a liar about his actions on the swift boats, and a liar about Cambodia.

I just proved several lies. ;)
With a bit of luck we won't be writing much more about these idiots. The past week has seen most of the organization's claims debunked and many of the members have thoroughly contradicted themselves. Not that you'd know it if you've been watching cable news. So let's do a quick recap of some of the week's more important stories:

*Alfred French, who signed an affidavit accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his war record, is in trouble after it was revealed that he didn't serve with Kerry and did not actually witness (http://www.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x46616&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530) his behavior in Vietnam. Lying in affidavits is obviously not a good idea when you're a county prosecutor. Oh yes, he also got caught lying about an extra-marital affair (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109360837947360.xml)..
This article doesnt cite anything that might prove it assertions that French didnt serve with Kerry.
And what does an extra-merital affair have to do with anything?
* After Ken Cordier's departure from Team Bush (Cordier, a former vice-chair (http://www.unc.edu/%7Echaos1/documents/vets_for_bush.pdf) of Veterans for Bush/Cheney) it was the turn of Benjamin Ginsberg to quit (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10572967%255E1702,00.html) a few weeks ago when it was revealed that not only was he a lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign, he was a lawyer for - surprise - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. .
no comment because I dont care who's lawyer was who's.
* Jim Russell (who, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," was actually there the day that Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the river) composed a stirring letter (http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt) contradicting their story. "The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed," he wrote..
A letter to an editor... yea. That's a great source... kinda like what crackpie did when he wrote "I am a conservative".
* Larry Thurlow signed an affidavit accusing Kerry of lying about being under fire when he rescued Rassmann, saying "no return fire occurred.... I never heard a shot." This directly contradicts his own Bronze Star citation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html). But a third Bronze Star was awarded that day, to another Swift Boat skipper, Robert Lambert. Lambert's recently-released citationsays that (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692) "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and that Lambert "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises his "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire." Thurlow claims that Kerry faked the citations by falsely describing events to superior officers. But Kerry is not the eyewitness on Thurlow's citation - Lambert is. Can it be any more obvious that Thurlow is lying?.
The assertion has been made that all of those bronze star citations were awarded because of Kerry's initial (possible) false report about taking fire. That report was what was used as basis for all those bronze stars.
* John O'Neill has been making a big stink lately over whether John Kerry was in Cambodia or not during the Vietnam War. It appears that nobody - including Kerry - is really sure. But O'Neill - as usual - made himself look like a complete ass by claiming (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html) to CNN that he (O'Neill) had never been in Cambodia and in fact it was impossible to cross the border by river. Whoops! It turns out that O'Neill appears on an audio tape recorded in the Oval Office telling the complete opposite to Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." NIXON: "In a swift boat?" O'NEILL: "Yes, sir." Ah, credibility. We hardly knew ye. .
John was pretty stupid to say that. However, when Kerry says "it was burned into my mind" I guess it wasnt burned so much that he could remember who was president at the time.
Here's a link that shows the connections and the contradictions of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the Bush/Cheney campaign and what they have previously said about John Kerry's war record. The link can be found here. (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html).
I was under the impression that Kerry's medical records havent been released. If that isnt true, could someone provide a link?
Now don't make me post this anymore. You know the Swift Boat Liars were lying all along. This just proves it, once again.

Hopefully you'll take your head out of your ass and join us in the real world.
This proves nothing, except that facts are in question.

One out of 240 did not serve with Kerry. congratualtions. Oh yeah, and Don't open up the extra-marital affair can of worms.

Many of the Kerry campaigns lawyers also work for 527s and pacs that attack Bush, contrary to law.

Another Partisan loser lies thru his teeth. Many of the Swift Boat VEts for Truth were there when Kerry dump Rassmun of his boat, Fled, than came back when he realized there was no enemy fire coming their way.

But who wrote the award? Was it Lambert? All the awards that day rely on Kerry's lies.

Well, where is the lie? Kerry said the same thing, but leftist idiots say he wasn't lying. Doesn't change the fact that Kerry is a liar about Vietnam, a liar about his actions on the swift boats, and a liar about Cambodia.


Nice. All you can do is call me a liar after I have proved to you that the Swift Boat Vet Liars have been lying all along. Then you try to throw in some cheap (and really lame) Republican spin. Oh, on top of that, it's alright for Republicans to question Kerry's service record, but when Democrats come and question Bush's service record, it's not alright.

How sad and pathetic is that?

Looks like I cannot have an intelligent conversation here after all--unless it's with myself. :rolleyes:

And the fact remains that moveon.org published the ads knowing their content, then removed them after people complained. Whether they claim to support the ads contents or whether they created the ads is irrelevant.

No. rif.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads

of which they recieved over 1500. It was a publicly submited ad that they withdrew. To spin it any other way is just that.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund

Triggerstreet.com is not responsible for the authorship of shitty scripts and films, the authors are.

So, pretty much I still give this line of reasoning the ol' Stretchy.

This article doesnt cite anything that might prove it assertions that French didnt serve with Kerry.
And what does an extra-merital affair have to do with anything?

no comment because I dont care who's lawyer was who's.

A letter to an editor... yea. That's a great source... kinda like what crackpie did when he wrote "I am a conservative".

The assertion has been made that all of those bronze star citations were awarded because of Kerry's initial (possible) false report about taking fire. That report was what was used as basis for all those bronze stars.

John was pretty stupid to say that. However, when Kerry says "it was burned into my mind" I guess it wasnt burned so much that he could remember who was president at the time.

I was under the impression that Kerry's medical records havent been released. If that isnt true, could someone provide a link?

This proves nothing, except that facts are in question.

You truly are an idiot, aren't you? "The assertion has been made that all of those bronze star citations were awarded because of Kerry's initial (possible) false report about taking fire. That report was what was used as basis for all those bronze stars." You didn't even READ the link I provided. :rolleyes:

How about reading my links before flapping your partisan gums and calling me a liar. :rolleyes:

You truly are an idiot, aren't you? "The assertion has been made that all of those bronze star citations were awarded because of Kerry's initial (possible) false report about taking fire. That report was what was used as basis for all those bronze stars." You didn't even READ the link I provided. :rolleyes:

How about reading my links before flapping your partisan gums and calling me a liar. :rolleyes:
I never called you a liar. Perhaps you are not reading my posts. I did read your sites. That letter to the editor was particularly amusing.

of which they recieved over 1500. It was a publicly submited ad that they withdrew. To spin it any other way is just that.

And they published the ads comparing Bush to Hitler after screening the ads. The quote you posted earlier stated that. It also stated that moveon.org apologises for these ads slipping through their screening processes. Even moveon.org accept responsibility for publishing the ads on their website.



Triggerstreet.com is not responsible for the authorship of shitty scripts and films, the authors are.

So, pretty much I still give this line of reasoning the ol' Stretchy.

I didn't say they were responsible for the script, I am saying they are responsible for publishing the ads on their website. Even after "screening" the entries. There is no spin on this, it is fact. The quotes from moveon.org you posted earlier confirm what I have said and thats from their own mouths!

And they published the ads comparing Bush to Hitler after screening the ads. The quote you posted earlier stated that. It also stated that moveon.org apologises for these ads slipping through their screening processes. Even moveon.org accept responsibility for publishing the ads on their website.





I didn't say they were responsible for the script, I am saying they are responsible for publishing the ads on their website. Even after "screening" the entries. There is no spin on this, it is fact. The quotes from moveon.org you posted earlier confirm what I have said and thats from their own mouths!
To use this round about logic, including liberal use of the word 'publish,' to indicate that moveon.org compares bush to hitler is a stretch and a way to avoid addressing any of the real issues that moveon.org really brings up. But, whatever. if by this connect the dot you want to avoid the issues that they are endorsing, knock yourself out. You could try harder, as some do (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258) and that would be welcome because no group is infaliable. But this, this still gets the stretchy. You can have the last word. I've wasted too much time on essentially nothing.

To use this round about logic, including liberal use of the word 'publish,' to indicate that moveon.org compares bush to hitler is a stretch and a way to avoid addressing any of the real issues that moveon.org really brings up. But, whatever. if by this connect the dot you want to avoid the issues that they are endorsing, knock yourself out. You could try harder, as some do (http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=258) and that would be welcome because no group is infaliable. But this, this still gets the stretchy. You can have the last word. I've wasted too much time on essentially nothing.

Oh, how we get our feathers ruffled by issues that were not mentioned. For a start, I did not say moveon.org compares Bush to Hiltler. I did say that they posted an ad on their website that compared Bush to Hitler. I did not say anything about the "real issues" that moveon.org bring up because that is irrelevent to the point I am making. That point being that moveon.org ran a competition, an entry they received compared Bush to Hitler and was subsequently passed through their screening process and published on their website. This is from the information you, yourself, have presented. Moveon.org then removed the entry from the competition after they received complaints and apologised for the fact that the ads "slipped through" their screening process.
So, you can ramble on about things that are irrelevant or you can accept that my reasoning on this issue is true.
The essence of the discussion earlier was whether moveon.org "aired" the ad, I am saying they did based on the fact they posted it on their website.

You are saying that he sent them to a war ill-equipped and that it isn't irresponsible?

Read what I posted one more time, then ask me that.

Clinton did not gut the military. He merely did not continue spending as if it was teh cold-war. Big difference. Why would we need to flood money into an overbloated military in times of peace? Why raise the pay of troops when they already make enough? Clinton in fact brought the military into teh information age and made them highly effective, thus allowing them to carry out missions quicker and will less troops and therefore casualties.

unmanned drones anyone?

I didn't say Clinton "gutted" the military, but he did cut their budget. As to the troops "making enough"? Hello? Are you familiar with what lower ranking personnel make? It's not much. And I disagree that Clinton brought them into the information age. There are many companies out there that make high-tech weaponry for the military that have been around for a long time. Example: Boeing (formerly McDonnell-Douglas, formerly Hughes) The unmanned drones are just the latest tech.

Its a good thing that Republicans would never stoop to cheap tactics to win an election. They certainly would never lie or try to scare people into voting for them....or...would they?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040917/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_mail

Uh oh....

Assuming the mailing is real, whoever put it together is seriously out of touch with reality. And I'm a conservative. Although both sides have experienced twits throwing out "official" campaign stances.

The ad doesn't show surrendering soldiers.. it shows a soldier sinking into the desert sand, and trying to keep his rifle up.... it's the same thing soldiers do when wading through water - do you think that footage of soldiers holding their rifles above their heads when crossing rivers is footage of surrendering soldiers?

Thank you! I didn't think about the soldier being in sand, but could tell he was waist-deep in something, definitely not surrendering. The image was so poor I couldn't tell what he was in. I was starting to think I was the only one who caught that.

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap.
I support the individuals in the military. However to withhold saying they are being misused for politically dubious purposes and being played to further connected corporate interests is wrong.

Bright eyed kids who love their country and truly believe they are serving her are being lied to and played by Bush & Co. just as Johnson and Nixon did in Viet Nam. In WWII the GI's were fighting for their country's survival. These kids are being used as cheap pawns to what end? The survival of the USA is not at stake, corporate interests are. They are not the same.

Now don't someone go reaching for their commie traitor axe. I proudly wear a flag pin and have the stars & stripes on display. I love America. I hate that the politicians have been selling it out to the corporations for the last 50+ years and the average citizen has been increasingly marginalized to the point that what we love and what remains increasingly becomes seperate entities.

Kerry is a spineless pile of Ted Kennedy's crap. But Bush has got to go & there is no other practical choice.

That's just it though. They may not think the war is in vain, but we sure as hell can see that it is. We failed in everything, including the extraction of oil (which was my suspicion for the reasons to go to war in the first place). All in all, those poor soldiers are fighting and dying in vain.

When I lived in Germany (beacause my mother and father work for the military) I got a job at a Subway on Landshtuhl hospital, which is where many of our wounded get sent to. Every day, I got to hear them talk about how futile the war is. Some of the soldiers believe in the war, but the ones I talked to, the ones that were doing the fighting, said that they could see no end in sight, and it was a lost cause to go in there.
It leaves one to wonder to what extent emotionality is playing a role in their statements and views.

If I left a limb behind I would want the cause to be something larger than my terrible loss.

If some of the guys I buddied up with had thier APV hit leaving inside it nothing but a jumble of limbs, guts and shredded flesh stewing in hot mix of blood and bodily fluids I think I would rationalize that they gave their life for something noble.

If my child or grandchild for whom I gave the better portion of my life's hope and energies nurturing and protecting got blown to scraps too small for DNA identification, it had better be for a damn good reason.

If not, I just might need to invent one - damn the facts!

Can you prove exactly any of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth allegations that have been disproven?
MIsterio did a good job, but he left at least one out. Larry Letson, who claimed to be the person who treated John Kerry for his first wound, is not cited anywhere on the medical treatment paperwork surrounding that treatment. His name does not appear--at all. Guess what that makes Letson?

MIsterio did a good job, but he left at least one out. Larry Letson, who claimed to be the person who treated John Kerry for his first wound, is not cited anywhere on the medical treatment paperwork surrounding that treatment. His name does not appear--at all. Guess what that makes Letson?
I have heard the right claim that Kerry has not released his medical records. If what you say is true, then he has released them.. could you post a link to those records? I would very much like to see them.

And Tygaland, the people who run Moveon stated at the time of the controversy surrounding the Hitler ad that it slipped past their screening process. They were expecting about a hundred ads total and got fifteen times that many. Moveon is a small organization when you're talking about the actual organizational staff--at the time it was around six people--and an ad that shouldn't have made it to the website slipped through. They pulled the ad, repudiated what it said and apologized for it--what the hell else do you want from them?

And Tygaland, the people who run Moveon stated at the time of the controversy surrounding the Hitler ad that it slipped past their screening process. They were expecting about a hundred ads total and got fifteen times that many. Moveon is a small organization when you're talking about the actual organizational staff--at the time it was around six people--and an ad that shouldn't have made it to the website slipped through. They pulled the ad, repudiated what it said and apologized for it--what the hell else do you want from them?

I don't want anything from them. I just wanted people to stop deluding themselves that moveon.org did not post the ad on their site. People arguing that moveon did not "air" the ad is false because they "aired" it on their website. Thats all I wanted confirmed.
They should be commended for apologising and removing the ad, but they should also be wary of the image posting such ads generates. Next time they will be more diligent.
Thank you, Incertonia, for addressing my questions honestly.

I have heard the right claim that Kerry has not released his medical records. If what you say is true, then he has released them.. could you post a link to those records? I would very much like to see them.
I got that information from factcheck.org, which stated that Letson's name did not appear on the medical records that Kerry provided them. Kerry's medical records are apparently available here (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0423b.html), although I have not taken the time to read through them because, quite frankly, I don't give enough of a shit to do so. For people to actually be concerned about this is stupid in the extreme.

Here's what it comes down to--assuming you even care what happened thirty-five years ago.

Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, a place that was quite dangerous. While he was there, he either served heroically, pulled off the greatest con job in the history of the Navy, or found some as of yet undiscovered middle ground. As a result, he has five major medals and carries around some shrapnel in his thigh to this day.

Bush's family pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard, where he was at first an able pilot, and then he sort of disappeared for a while. Whether or not you believe the recent CBS documents are faked, the information they provided was nothing new, and at least two people who were directly involved with the commander in question have said that the contents of those memos were consistent with Killian's attitudes at the time. Bush wound up with an honorable discharge, which to some means he was pretty much a hero and to others means about the square root of dick.

That's the long and the short of it. If you think any of it matters in terms of which one will do a better job as President, then you've got a pretty skewed sense of what it takes to do the job.

This is an incumbent's re-election bid. Look honestly at the job Bush has done since Jan. 20, 2001, and decide if he's done a good enough job that you want him to keep doing it for four more years. If that answer is yes, then in my opinion, God help us. If it's no, then vote for the other guy.

I don't want anything from them. I just wanted people to stop deluding themselves that moveon.org did not post the ad on their site. People arguing that moveon did not "air" the ad is false because they "aired" it on their website. Thats all I wanted confirmed.
They should be commended for apologising and removing the ad, but they should also be wary of the image posting such ads generates. Next time they will be more diligent.
Thank you, Incertonia, for addressing my questions honestly.Hold on a second--someone else pointed out earlier that the word "aired" has a very specific connotation, even in this digital age. It indicates broadcast television advertising. That's the specific connotation of that word in terms of advertising. so it is not correct to say that Moveon "aired" that ad. They most certainly did not air it, and to suggest otherwise is deception, plain and simple.

Hold on a second--someone else pointed out earlier that the word "aired" has a very specific connotation, even in this digital age. It indicates broadcast television advertising. That's the specific connotation of that word in terms of advertising. so it is not correct to say that Moveon "aired" that ad. They most certainly did not air it, and to suggest otherwise is deception, plain and simple.

air Audio pronunciation of "aired" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (âr) n.

1.
1. A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases.
2. This mixture with varying amounts of moisture and particulate matter, enveloping the earth; the atmosphere.
2.
1. The sky; the firmament.
2. A giant void; nothingness: The money vanished into thin air.
3. An atmospheric movement; a breeze or wind.
4. Aircraft: send troops to Europe by air.
5.
1. Public utterance; vent: gave air to their grievances.
2. The electronic broadcast media: “often ridiculed... extremist groups on air” (Christian Science Monitor).
6. A peculiar or characteristic impression; an aura.
7. Personal bearing, appearance, or manner; mien.
8. airs An affected, often haughty pose; affectation. See Synonyms at affectation.
9. Music.
1. A melody or tune, especially in the soprano or tenor range.
2. A solo with or without accompaniment.
10. Air conditioning.
11. Archaic. Breath.

(Source: www.dictionary.com)

To publicly utter is to "air", so as the ad was made public, it was aired.

I got that information from factcheck.org, which stated that Letson's name did not appear on the medical records that Kerry provided them. Kerry's medical records are apparently available here (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0423b.html), although I have not taken the time to read through them because, quite frankly, I don't give enough of a shit to do so. For people to actually be concerned about this is stupid in the extreme.


According to the web site and what I read of one of the links, that's a "summary", not the documents. They might be accurate, then again they might not.

As far as Kerry's medical records, no, he hasn't realeased them.

If the folks at Moveon.org really cared that much about the soilders across the sea they wouldn't air ads that will hurt their moral.

Quoting people say its a quagmire and such things won't help them get back alive, I can tell you that much. How do you think it feels to be waist deep in sand and hear about a commercial calling the war your in a quagmire and telling you your commander and chief basically sent you over there to die for no good reason.

Defend them if you want, but, the plain and simple truth is they are a group of character assasins. I'm not saying the republicans don't have thier share of them but, defending these morons is just rediculous.

To publicly utter is to "air", so as the ad was made public, it was aired.
I was supposed to let this go, but as a media person this is just to stupid and to intentionally deceptive to let go.

First, people need to stop thinking that they can define media and it's conotations with dictionary.com. Thats fine for scrabble, this is media discourse.

Second, to have something posted on a website in a contest where the sponsering party is not responsable for the content of the submissions and to have 'air' something in the context of media-two entirely seperate things. To argue that it was aired is to imply, in media context (which is right under the definition you chose, and you know to be the context), that the ad was paid for and/or endorsed by the party in a broadcast format. The internet, while wide, in this context is not considered broadcast, and you know that.

By creating this roundabout definition of air, it creates the impression that moveon.org does or has compared bush to hitler, which is deceptive.

Dictionary.com is not a text on media nor a source for defining media to suit your needs. No one is disputing that the ad apeared on the site. If you want to stand on that molehill and insist its a mountain, knock yourself out. It does not change what is implied by aired, or that moveon.org did not air that ad.

As far as Kerry's medical records, no, he hasn't realeased them.

If the folks at Moveon.org really cared that much about the soilders across the sea they wouldn't air ads that will hurt their moral.

Quoting people say its a quagmire and such things won't help them get back alive, I can tell you that much. How do you think it feels to be waist deep in sand and hear about a commercial calling the war your in a quagmire and telling you your commander and chief basically sent you over there to die for no good reason.

Defend them if you want, but, the plain and simple truth is they are a group of character assasins. I'm not saying the republicans don't have thier share of them but, defending these morons is just rediculous.


I don't think there are very many out there who don't now believe that the War in Iraq was, and is, a horrible mistake, or, if you want to use Bush's word for it, a "miscalculation."

Now, at that point, I think it's perfectly moral and admirable to want those men, who are being injured and killed for our country, back home safely. If it is a person's conviction that the best way to get them home safe is to speak up and change the leadership so that the war can be ended sooner, that person has every right to speak their beliefs loudly and clearly.

To be obsinant and keep a war going that is critically flawed is the worst disservie we can do our brave military.

Our soldiers are in harms way to protect our country. Period. Being honest and calling the war, so far, a miserable failure does not, in any way, cheapen their service. Who are to blame, and who is the target of the ad's disdain, are those who have sent our soldiers to that quagmire, and those whose planning has put them in ever more precarious positions.

America must never make a mistake like this again. The mistake cheapens us all. The disregard for human life, our and theirs, especially cheapens those in charge of our country.

Be a real patriot, and speak up for what's right.

I don't think there are very many out there who don't now believe that the War in Iraq was, and is, a horrible mistake, or, if you want to use Bush's word for it, a "miscalculation."

Now, at that point, I think it's perfectly moral and admirable to want those men, who are being injured and killed for our country, back home safely. If it is a person's conviction that the best way to get them home safe is to speak up and change the leadership so that the war can be ended sooner, that person has every right to speak their beliefs loudly and clearly.

To be obsinant and keep a war going that is critically flawed is the worst disservie we can do our brave military.

Our soldiers are in harms way to protect our country. Period. Being honest and calling the war, so far, a miserable failure does not, in any way, cheapen their service. Who are to blame, and who is the target of the ad's disdain, are those who have sent our soldiers to that quagmire, and those whose planning has put them in ever more precarious positions.

America must never make a mistake like this again. The mistake cheapens us all. The disregard for human life, our and theirs, especially cheapens those in charge of our country.

Be a real patriot, and speak up for what's right.


Well said, true Patriotism.

Well said, true Patriotism.

You can call it Patriotism, and that's fine, but I see it more as not cleaning up your own mess.

We invaded Iraq; it is too late to turn back. We need to mop up the mess. Now granted it is a no-win situation for some points of view, and even myself I highly dislike the reasoning behind the war itself, but I feel that Saddam Hussein was a bastard Tyrant.

You cannot take a dump in another country and not bother to clean it up.

You can call it Patriotism, and that's fine, but I see it more as not cleaning up your own mess.

We invaded Iraq; it is too late to turn back. We need to mop up the mess. Now granted it is a no-win situation for some points of view, and even myself I highly dislike the reasoning behind the war itself, but I feel that Saddam Hussein was a bastard Tyrant.

You cannot take a dump in another country and not bother to clean it up.


Ah as Newport said on "This Just In", "Just because it took us 4 days to blow it (Iraq) up doesn't mean we can fix it that fast".

Ah as Newport said on "This Just In", "Just because it took us 4 days to blow it (Iraq) up doesn't mean we can fix it that fast".

I think we all realize that.

But that does not mean we can leave it like a mess.

I think we all realize that.

But that does not mean we can leave it like a mess.


I'm just my glad my country didn't go into Iraq because Afghanistan was enough for us.

Tygaland, I said the connotation of the word "aired," not the dictionary definition--the use of the word as it is commonly understood in the parlance of the business of advertising. In that specialized universe, the term "aired" has the specific connotation of television broadcast, and not the temporary, unintended hosting of something on a website in the middle of a contest. Continue to believe that Moveon "aired" the ad if you must, but know that you are being intellectually dishonest when you do it, and that people who know the story, know you are and that you damage your credibility as a result.

You can call it Patriotism, and that's fine, but I see it more as not cleaning up your own mess.

We invaded Iraq; it is too late to turn back. We need to mop up the mess. Now granted it is a no-win situation for some points of view, and even myself I highly dislike the reasoning behind the war itself, but I feel that Saddam Hussein was a bastard Tyrant.

You cannot take a dump in another country and not bother to clean it up.

Ah, so you agree now that it's maybe allowable to be critical of the war, and that it is possible to draw a distinction between the war and the warriors?

I agree, we shat the bed in Iraq, and now we have to clean it up. I think having international support will help to do it more quickly, cheaply, and with much more of an appearance of legitimacy. We have to swallow our pride, admit we were wrong, and ask nicely for help. Can you honestly see Bush swallowing his pride?

Bush, and many ardent Bush supporters, see asking for help and trying to play nicely with others as subjugating America to the whims of the U.N.. There is a middle ground between surrendering our autonomy and blithely going it alone. A distinction that many here fail to make.

Ah, so you agree now that it's maybe allowable to be critical of the war, and that it is possible to draw a distinction between the war and the warriors?

I agree, we shat the bed in Iraq, and now we have to clean it up. I think having international support will help to do it more quickly, cheaply, and with much more of an appearance of legitimacy. We have to swallow our pride, admit we were wrong, and ask nicely for help. Can you honestly see Bush swallowing his pride?

Bush, and many ardent Bush supporters, see asking for help and trying to play nicely with others as subjugating America to the whims of the U.N.. There is a middle ground between surrendering our autonomy and blithely going it alone. A distinction that many here fail to make.

What do you mean I agree now?

I agree that we need international help on this issue; but to me, I don't think the U.N. would bother to hear any case regarding Iraq.

What do you mean I agree now?

I agree that we need international help on this issue; but to me, I don't think the U.N. would bother to hear any case regarding Iraq.


Why do you think that (I don't think the U.N. would bother to hear any case regarding Iraq) is?

Tygaland, I said the connotation of the word "aired," not the dictionary definition--the use of the word as it is commonly understood in the parlance of the business of advertising. In that specialized universe, the term "aired" has the specific connotation of television broadcast, and not the temporary, unintended hosting of something on a website in the middle of a contest. Continue to believe that Moveon "aired" the ad if you must, but know that you are being intellectually dishonest when you do it, and that people who know the story, know you are and that you damage your credibility as a result.

You can believe your "connotations" but that does not mean the use of the word "aired" was in error or inaccurate. Moveon.org aired, published, hosted or posted the ad, whichever word suits you. The bottom line is that they did post that ad on their website and therefore made it public under their name.
I am not being intellectually dishonest, I am dealing with the facts as they occurred:

1. The Bush-Hitler ad was submitted for the Moveon.org competition.
2. The ad passed through the "screening process" and was posted or aired on the website.
3. People complained and the ad was removed.
4. Moveon.org apologised and distanced themselves from the content of the ad.

Have I missed anything there? If so, what? If not, what is intellectually dishonest about what I have said? I have never said moveon.org created the ad and I have never said that moveon.org supported its content.

The crux of the matter is the moveon.org made the ad public. Whether it was accidental or not is not relevant, they made it public. Thats all I wanted confirmed by you.

Therefore, people arguing that moveon.org had nothing to do with the ad being brought to the public is false.

I love it in politics, on boths sides, how you do something "by mistake," apologize, distance yourself from an issue and then pretend it never happened. In this case, intent didn't really seem to matter much. The idea was planted, whether or not it was by mistake, it doesn't matter.

You can believe your "connotations" but that does not mean the use of the word "aired" was in error or inaccurate. Moveon.org aired, published, hosted or posted the ad, whichever word suits you. The bottom line is that they did post that ad on their website and therefore made it public under their name.
I am not being intellectually dishonest, I am dealing with the facts as they occurred:

1. The Bush-Hitler ad was submitted for the Moveon.org competition.
2. The ad passed through the "screening process" and was posted or aired on the website.
3. People complained and the ad was removed.
4. Moveon.org apologised and distanced themselves from the content of the ad.

Have I missed anything there? If so, what? If not, what is intellectually dishonest about what I have said? I have never said moveon.org created the ad and I have never said that moveon.org supported its content.

The crux of the matter is the moveon.org made the ad public. Whether it was accidental or not is not relevant, they made it public. Thats all I wanted confirmed by you.

Therefore, people arguing that moveon.org had nothing to do with the ad being brought to the public is false.
Who in the hell has ever made the argument you posit in your last sentence? No one. Quit trying to act like someone has.

What has been argued--from the very beginning--was that Moveon did not create, did not commission, and did not broadcast over the television airwaves, and never intended to broadcast over the television airwaves, any commercial that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. That's been the argument since the beginning of this whole bullshit controversy, and that's the utter and complete truth. To hint at anything else is a lie, plain and simple.

I was supposed to let this go, but as a media person this is just to stupid and to intentionally deceptive to let go.

First, people need to stop thinking that they can define media and it's conotations with dictionary.com. Thats fine for scrabble, this is media discourse.

Ah, so we must use your definitions and context for "aired". To me, to air something is to make it public. As in, "to air your grievances".

Second, to have something posted on a website in a contest where the sponsering party is not responsable for the content of the submissions and to have 'air' something in the context of media-two entirely seperate things. To argue that it was aired is to imply, in media context (which is right under the definition you chose, and you know to be the context), that the ad was paid for and/or endorsed by the party in a broadcast format. The internet, while wide, in this context is not considered broadcast, and you know that.

I never said they were responsible for the content of the ad, I said they were negligent to post the ad on their website after it passed their screening process. No-one paid anything for the ad to be aired, it was submitted as part of a competition and posted on the website.

By creating this roundabout definition of air, it creates the impression that moveon.org does or has compared bush to hitler, which is deceptive.[/QUOTE[

No, again, you have not read what I have said. I have never stated moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler. I have said they were negligent in posting the ad that did make this comparison.

[QUOTE=Cannot think of a name]Dictionary.com is not a text on media nor a source for defining media to suit your needs. No one is disputing that the ad apeared on the site. If you want to stand on that molehill and insist its a mountain, knock yourself out. It does not change what is implied by aired, or that moveon.org did not air that ad.

I am not disputing that the ad appeared on the website. That is not the point of what I am saying. Obviously it has gone over your head. Moveon.org were responsible for the ad becoming public, it was posted or aired (whatever word you want to use, it doesn't matter) on their website. Therefore, those that argue that the ad had nothing to do with moveon.org are wrong. They are wrong because the ad passed through the moveon.org screening process and was posted on their website.

What do you mean I agree now?

I agree that we need international help on this issue; but to me, I don't think the U.N. would bother to hear any case regarding Iraq.


Okay, so you agree that one can criticize the war without criticizing the soldiers.

Do you also agree that, if a soldier were sinking in a quagmire, marsh, river, mudhole, etc., that they would hold their weapon above their head, just as the ad depicts? That, in fact, there's no other realistic way of showing a soldier sinking into liquid?

In that case, there's no real basis for calling this commercial an insult to our soldiers, unless you are predisposed to hate anything coming from Democrats and their allies. In that case, then the problem is with you, not the commercial.

I love it in politics, on boths sides, how you do something "by mistake," apologize, distance yourself from an issue and then pretend it never happened. In this case, intent didn't really seem to matter much. The idea was planted, whether or not it was by mistake, it doesn't matter.

Yes, I used the analogy of a lawyer blurting out a statement that was flase then immediately retracting the statement. The jury heard it and that seed was planted, the retraction means nothing once the information is out.
I doubt moveon.org would have been stupid enough to deliberately post the ad then retract it to plant ideas. Nonetheless, the release of such an ad on their website may have damaged their reputation in some people's eyes.

Who in the hell has ever made the argument you posit in your last sentence? No one. Quit trying to act like someone has.

What has been argued--from the very beginning--was that Moveon did not create, did not commission, and did not broadcast over the television airwaves, and never intended to broadcast over the television airwaves, any commercial that compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler.

Ah, so you are aguing the obvious then. My mistake. I was taking it a step back but obviously that creates some issues that you are not prepared to look at. The actual argument, or theme of this thread, is about another separate ad. However, things drifted to the Bush-Hitler ad and I was interested to hear from members of moveon.org what they thought about the Bush-Hitler ad debacle. That was the reason for my questioning.

That's been the argument since the beginning of this whole bullshit controversy, and that's the utter and complete truth. To hint at anything else is a lie, plain and simple.

I'm lying? Show me what I have lied about.

What it seems like you're trying to do, Tygaland, is impute some responsibility to Moveon that doesn't belong there. I say this because of the comparison you use to the defense lawyer who lets something false--your word--slip out when he knows he'll have to retract it, the purpose being to plant an idea in the jury's mind. If you're arguing that Moveon did this knowingly and deliberately when you have no proof of it, then at the very least, you're being misleading about the level of involvement about this ad.

And while you may not personally accused Moveon of backing this ad, many others have, people with AM radio talk shows for instance. You say I am arguing the obvious--I say I'm arguing the case for which there is proof. You say you're taking a step back--I say you're hypothesizing without any basis, and by extension, imputing motives onto a group with no grounds for doing so.

What it seems like you're trying to do, Tygaland, is impute some responsibility to Moveon that doesn't belong there. I say this because of the comparison you use to the defense lawyer who lets something false--your word--slip out when he knows he'll have to retract it, the purpose being to plant an idea in the jury's mind. If you're arguing that Moveon did this knowingly and deliberately when you have no proof of it, then at the very least, you're being misleading about the level of involvement about this ad.

I am imputing responsibility on moveon.org only for posting the ad on their website, not for its content. My comparison with the lawyer can be taken in one of two contexts. The first being that they deliberately let the ad through then retracted it and the second being that the ad accidentally slipped through the net as they claimed and the ad has unfairly stained moveon because of this. Either way, people saw the ad on the website and have not forgotten it, that is the analogy I was drawing.

And while you may not personally accused Moveon of backing this ad, many others have, people with AM radio talk shows for instance. You say I am arguing the obvious--I say I'm arguing the case for which there is proof. You say you're taking a step back--I say you're hypothesizing without any basis, and by extension, imputing motives onto a group with no grounds for doing so.

What have I hypothesised about? I have not imputed any motives, only discussed the event and the resulting publicity it created. I have not said anymore than what moveon.org has already acknowledged.

As far as Kerry's medical records, no, he hasn't realeased them.

If the folks at Moveon.org really cared that much about the soilders across the sea they wouldn't air ads that will hurt their moral.

Quoting people say its a quagmire and such things won't help them get back alive, I can tell you that much. How do you think it feels to be waist deep in sand and hear about a commercial calling the war your in a quagmire and telling you your commander and chief basically sent you over there to die for no good reason.

Defend them if you want, but, the plain and simple truth is they are a group of character assasins. I'm not saying the republicans don't have thier share of them but, defending these morons is just rediculous.

Well said.

Okay, so you agree that one can criticize the war without criticizing the soldiers.

Do you also agree that, if a soldier were sinking in a quagmire, marsh, river, mudhole, etc., that they would hold their weapon above their head, just as the ad depicts? That, in fact, there's no other realistic way of showing a soldier sinking into liquid?

In that case, there's no real basis for calling this commercial an insult to our soldiers, unless you are predisposed to hate anything coming from Democrats and their allies. In that case, then the problem is with you, not the commercial.

The origin of this thread is due to the ad supposedly depicting that soldier as surrendering, rather than wading through water or sinking in sand/quagmire. The wrong would be if the ad is intended to show an American soldier surrendering. If the ad is intended to imply the soldier is sinking in a quagmire, which makes more sense for the image, there are just as many soldiers who don't see it that way, and would find the ad offensive. MoveOn.org has the right to make it's oppinion known, but should leave the soldiers out of it.

And as to the definition or connotation of "aired" regarding the Hitler ads, I believe this is what's called arguing semantics? Ok, the ads got past the screening process and were posted. Fine. Got that. The ads were also pulled when people viewing the ads complained, and MoveOn issued an apology, stating in writing that it did not endorse the ads nor intend to deliberatley post them. People, on both sides, make mistakes. Both parties have their share of wackos. Understood. Can we move on now (no pun intended)? :rolleyes:

I proudly wear a flag pin and have the stars & stripes on display. I love America. I hate that the politicians have been selling it out to the corporations for the last 50+ years and the average citizen has been increasingly marginalized to the point that what we love and what remains increasingly becomes seperate entities.
Go you!

And as to the definition or connotation of "aired" regarding the Hitler ads, I believe this is what's called arguing semantics? Ok, the ads got past the screening process and were posted. Fine. Got that. The ads were also pulled when people viewing the ads complained, and MoveOn issued an apology, stating in writing that it did not endorse the ads nor intend to deliberatley post them. People, on both sides, make mistakes. Both parties have their share of wackos. Understood. Can we move on now (no pun intended)? :rolleyes:
Nothing personal, but when people say that a controversy is due to "arguing semantics," that means to me that they don't truly understand the power of words. A skilled orator can turn a pleasant group into a frenzied mob, simply through the use of words. People can be led to believe something that is absolutely false without being lied to, simply through the skilled use of words. And this is an example.

Perhaps I'm sensitive to word usage because it's a large part of my career as a writer, but I know that I manipulate language to get a specific reaction, and I do it deliberately. So when I see someone using language to create a false impression, I get a bit upset about it, precisely because I know how effective it can be.

If the folks at Moveon.org really cared that much about the soilders across the sea they wouldn't air ads that will hurt their moral.

Obviously their real priority isn't on the soldiers, but on their political agenda- no different than their Republican counterparts.

Quoting people say its a quagmire and such things won't help them get back alive, I can tell you that much.

In point of fact, chances are that no TV ad is going to have any impact on whether they get back alive or not. Unless they watch something and perhaps get really distraught and kill themselves or something, which is relatively unlikely.

How do you think it feels to be waist deep in sand and hear about a commercial calling the war your in a quagmire and telling you your commander and chief basically sent you over there to die for no good reason.

What does it matter how it makes THEM feel? The commercial isn't directed at them, but at the overall American public. Political attack commercials aren't made to make people feel good.

Saying that people should basically be banned from making ads because they might hurt people's "feelings" is absurd. It's called freedom of speech, suck it up. How do you think Kerry and his crewmen felt when they heard about the Swift Boat ads? Or Max Cleland when he saw an ad comparing him to Bin Laden?

My litmus test is about truth, not whether it makes people sad or not. And the Moveon ad, as far as I've been able to tell, is accurate, using real quotes. If the TRUTH of what military higher-ups have been saying makes our troops feel bad- GOOD. If I was in that situation, I'd prefer people tell me the truth rather than some made-up bullshit to make me feel better. They're going to find out sooner or later- assuming they don't already know.

Defend them if you want, but, the plain and simple truth is they are a group of character assasins.

How is that related to them hurting the troops' feelings? Whose character have they "assasinated" with this ad? The war? (Oh no, did we hurt the war's feelings? :rolleyes: )

I'm not saying the republicans don't have thier share of them but, defending these morons is just rediculous.

I disagree. I don't see anything wrong with this ad, aside from the fact it says things you don't want yourself- or American troops- to hear.

Feel free to censor what you watch. Just don't try and tell other people what they can't watch, too.

Nothing personal, but when people say that a controversy is due to "arguing semantics," that means to me that they don't truly understand the power of words. A skilled orator can turn a pleasant group into a frenzied mob, simply through the use of words. People can be led to believe something that is absolutely false without being lied to, simply through the skilled use of words. And this is an example.

Perhaps I'm sensitive to word usage because it's a large part of my career as a writer, but I know that I manipulate language to get a specific reaction, and I do it deliberately. So when I see someone using language to create a false impression, I get a bit upset about it, precisely because I know how effective it can be.

No offense taken. I'm aware I was possibly not using the correct term, there. It just seemed the dispute between you and Tygaland wasn't getting anywhere. I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but it seemed to boil down to how one chose to define or interpret "aired". As a writer, perhaps you can make a suggestion for what would have been more appropriate? I am well aware of the power of words, but that doesn't mean I'm going to choose the correct one when attempting to make a point.

No offense taken. I'm aware I was possibly not using the correct term, there. It just seemed the dispute between you and Tygaland wasn't getting anywhere. I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but it seemed to boil down to how one chose to define or interpret "aired". As a writer, perhaps you can make a suggestion for what would have been more appropriate? I am well aware of the power of words, but that doesn't mean I'm going to choose the correct one when attempting to make a point.
Since this deals with media, which is where I live, I'll stab at this:

Tygland is manipulating the meaning of 'aired,' cherry picking his definition, to create a tacit endorsement for moveon.org and the ad. He is not disputing anything except that posting on a website=airing. It is an industry term that has an understood meaning that Tygland is manipulating. Here's why it's ridiculous:

Max Barry spreads Nazism. Nazis post on his site, thier posts get by the 'screening' process. They are taken down when there is a complaint, but he is responsible for the spread of Nazism, and to say he is not involved is incorrect. Ergo, Max Barry airs nazism. Out of the blue, Max Barry becomes a Nazi supporter just for putting up a public forum. I'm just guessing, but that impication would upset him and paint an innacurate portrayal of his beliefs. However, by Tygland's logic it would be correct. However, it is not.

What I suspect Tygland knows and was the reasoning behind leading the questions the way he did is that his 'technical,' though inacurate, definition of aired based on cherry-picking his definition from dictionary.com (if using dictionary.com could define media, my degree would have been A LOT easier. or comparitivly I could complain about Michael Eisner airing laundry, it's equally deceptive) would not carry past his rationalization. When pressed he could make his round about case, but the reality is that he makes a deceptive claim that will be interperated tacitly as moveon.org endorsing and actively comparing bush to hitler. By using his carefully constructed definition he is allowed to create a false impression. As Incertonia called it, that is intellectually dishonest.

The thing is, s/he does not get to 'decide' what interpertation of 'aired' is used. There are seperate terms for seperate things. He knows there is a difference between posting and airing. S/He also knows that there is a difference between a contest and producing and endorsing a piece of work. His way of constructing the argument is an attempt to seperate the interving factors to create the impression of endorsement when there is none. Moveon.org and it's members have taken as much responsibilty as was thiers to take. Tygland wants to impy that they haven't by modifying meanings. I don't buy it, nor do I buy his/her proposed detatchment.

Since this deals with media, which is where I live, I'll stab at this:

Tygland is manipulating the meaning of 'aired,' cherry picking his definition, to create a tacit endorsement for moveon.org and the ad. He is not disputing anything except that posting on a website=airing. It is an industry term that has an understood meaning that Tygland is manipulating.

As opposed to you "cherry picking" your definition? I was not saying they tacitly approved the ad, just that people here that support moveon.org acknowledge that they did publicly air the ad on their website.

Here's why it's ridiculous:

Max Barry spreads Nazism. Nazis post on his site, thier posts get by the 'screening' process. They are taken down when there is a complaint, but he is responsible for the spread of Nazism, and to say he is not involved is incorrect. Ergo, Max Barry airs nazism. Out of the blue, Max Barry becomes a Nazi supporter just for putting up a public forum. I'm just guessing, but that impication would upset him and paint an innacurate portrayal of his beliefs. However, by Tygland's logic it would be correct. However, it is not.

One flaw in your argument. The Nazism posted on this forum is posted direct from the people that use the forum. If Max Barry took pro-Nazi postings and posted them on his personal website then that is a different case entirely. Moveon.org screened the entry then posted it on their website. The person that entered the ad did not post it, movon did. Big difference. Secondly, I have not said that moveon.org compare Bush to Hitler.

What I suspect Tygland knows and was the reasoning behind leading the questions the way he did is that his 'technical,' though inacurate, definition of aired based on cherry-picking his definition from dictionary.com (if using dictionary.com could define media, my degree would have been A LOT easier. or comparitivly I could complain about Michael Eisner airing laundry, it's equally deceptive) would not carry past his rationalization.

How is my definition inaccurate? The ad was "aired" in public by moveon.org. Whether that was in error or deliberate is irrelvant. The only point I am making is that moveon.org DID air the ad on their website, that is a fact. You can argue semantics and rant on about your "media degree" but that is no less "cherry picking" than what you accuse me of doing.

When pressed he could make his round about case, but the reality is that he makes a deceptive claim that will be interperated tacitly as moveon.org endorsing and actively comparing bush to hitler. By using his carefully constructed definition he is allowed to create a false impression. As Incertonia called it, that is intellectually dishonest.

No, it is not intellectually dishonest. Moveon.org publicised the ad, fact. They admitted it "slipped" through their screening process, fact. This means they did look at the ad before posting it on their website, no? They then removed the ad after people complained, fact. They then apologised for posting the ad on their website citing a flaw in their screening process. So, how exactly do you absolve moveon.org for airing the ad? How is my argument suggesting they did in fact air the ad (either in error or by choice, I have not said either way) dishonest. It is fact, acknowledged by Moveon.org themselves.

The thing is, s/he does not get to 'decide' what interpertation of 'aired' is used.

But you do?

There are seperate terms for seperate things. He knows there is a difference between posting and airing. S/He also knows that there is a difference between a contest and producing and endorsing a piece of work. His way of constructing the argument is an attempt to seperate the interving factors to create the impression of endorsement when there is none. Moveon.org and it's members have taken as much responsibilty as was thiers to take. Tygland wants to impy that they haven't by modifying meanings. I don't buy it, nor do I buy his/her proposed detatchment.

Wrong, I have not said moveon.org endorsed the ad. Show me where I have. The difference between a contest and what happened at Moveon.org is that moveon screened the ads before they went to the website. This ad passed through their screening process. Read the earlier quote cited by Incertonia. Moveon acknowledge this is what happened. I have not said moveon.org did not take responsibility, quite the opposite. I posted earlier that they should be commended for taking the action they did, that is, remove the ad and apologise. The only argument I am making is that the people who absolve moveon.org of any responsibility for "airing" the ad on their website should look again. Moveon have taken responsibility, so why can't their followers?

No offense taken. I'm aware I was possibly not using the correct term, there. It just seemed the dispute between you and Tygaland wasn't getting anywhere. I'm not sure what the correct term would be, but it seemed to boil down to how one chose to define or interpret "aired". As a writer, perhaps you can make a suggestion for what would have been more appropriate? I am well aware of the power of words, but that doesn't mean I'm going to choose the correct one when attempting to make a point.
The problem is that Tygaland--as is indicated above by his reply to CToaN--is using a far broader definition of the word "aired" than is commonly used by broadcasters. In one sense, Tygaland is correct in his assertion that Moveon aired the ad--but only in the broadest possible usage. In the common usage, both CToaN and I are correct when we say that Moveon did not air the Hitler ad. In my opinion, the proper and appropriate usage is the one which the context calls for, namely, the one which is used by broadcasters.

All right, champ. I have another dictionary.com word for you:

equivocation



n 1: a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth [syn: evasion] 2: intentionally vague or ambiguous [syn: prevarication, evasiveness] 3: falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language [syn: tergiversation]




It's what happens when you seek to modify the meaning of the word 'aired' in the context of an ad. Context determines meaning, not ridiculous arguments. Moveon.org and its members accept responsability for the posting. Anything else, see above.

The problem is that Tygaland--as is indicated above by his reply to CToaN--is using a far broader definition of the word "aired" than is commonly used by broadcasters. In one sense, Tygaland is correct in his assertion that Moveon aired the ad--but only in the broadest possible usage. In the common usage, both CToaN and I are correct when we say that Moveon did not air the Hitler ad. In my opinion, the proper and appropriate usage is the one which the context calls for, namely, the one which is used by broadcasters.
Ok, how about a new term... did Moveon.org host the hitler ad? Did they post the hitler ad? What term would be appropriate for having the hitler ad available for public viewing?

Ok, how about a new term... did Moveon.org host the hitler ad? Did they post the hitler ad? What term would be appropriate for having the hitler ad available for public viewing?
They inadvertently hosted it temporarily and pulled it when it was brought to their attention--that's about as accurate as you can get I think. Fair enough?

Ok, how about a new term... did Moveon.org host the hitler ad? Did they post the hitler ad? What term would be appropriate for having the hitler ad available for public viewing?
The ad was posted on thier website as part of a public contest. Why is that hard for people?
EDIT: Or what Incertonia said clearly and without being snippy.......damn I knew I should have waited......

They inadvertently hosted it temporarily and pulled it when it was brought to their attention--that's about as accurate as you can get I think. Fair enough?
Fair enough.

Fair enough.
I appreciate it. :D

All right, champ. I have another dictionary.com word for you:



It's what happens when you seek to modify the meaning of the word 'aired' in the context of an ad. Context determines meaning, not ridiculous arguments. Moveon.org and its members accept responsability for the posting. Anything else, see above.

No, I applied the broad meaning of the word, not the narrow one you wish to use. The definition of equivocation you posted could just as easily apply to your argument.

Cannot think of a Name still does not acknowledge that moveon.org posted the ad on their site. He/she still seems to think it was posted directly by an external source. It wasn't. I have stated that moveon.org accepted responsibility.

Moveon.org has no intentions beyond slamming Bush for anything they can get their hands on, main reason i dont like them. I dont like the Swiftboat ads either, but i respect them because they are centered at one issue and not going after Kerry for anything else.

Kerry prances around proclaiming he's a war hero and waving his purple hearts around. I cannot believe he has the nerve to do that after going in front of congress and degrading and proclaiming that the same men he fought alongside with and they all fought just a bravely as him are war criminals, pillagers, and rapists. When your peers look at you and call you a hero, when they respect you and will follow you to the end, "thats" what makes you a hero. His bragging arrogance makes him no more then a false advocate. They even have proof that he exaggerated and perhaps lied about his exploits. No doubt he saved a man's life, but over the course of the years his story has changed drastically.

No, I applied the broad meaning of the word, not the narrow one you wish to use. The definition of equivocation you posted could just as easily apply to your argument.

Cannot think of a Name still does not acknowledge that moveon.org posted the ad on their site. He/she still seems to think it was posted directly by an external source. It wasn't. I have stated that moveon.org accepted responsibility.
Nice redirect, but no, you are equivocating and yes I do agree that they posted it as part of a public contest. Not aired. It's your attatchment to that misapplied word I take objection to.

...I did not say moveon.org compares Bush to Hiltler. I did say that they posted an ad on their website that compared Bush to Hitler. ...This is from the information you, yourself, have presented. Moveon.org then removed the entry from the competition after they received complaints and apologised for the fact that the ads "slipped through" their screening process....The essence of the discussion earlier was whether moveon.org "aired" the ad, I am saying they did based on the fact they posted it on their website.

Next, you'll be telling us that we mods are responsible for what posters put on here? ;)

Nice redirect, but no, you are equivocating and yes I do agree that they posted it as part of a public contest. Not aired. It's your attatchment to that misapplied word I take objection to.

Redirect? I have said the same thing from the beginning. You fail to grasp that moveon.org posted/aired/hosted the ad on their website. It was not posted/aired/hosted on their website by another person. Moveon.org put the ad on the website.
The use of aired is not misapplied as I showed from the definition of the word itself. Aired = made public. Moveon.org made the ad public, hence they aired it.

Next, you'll be telling us that we mods are responsible for what posters put on here? ;)

Taking the smiley to mean you are kidding I will still point you in the direction of an earlier post (#190) pointing out the difference between what happened with moveon and the ad and what happens here.

Redirect? I have said the same thing from the beginning. You fail to grasp that moveon.org posted/aired/hosted the ad on their website. It was not posted/aired/hosted on their website by another person. Moveon.org put the ad on the website.
The use of aired is not misapplied as I showed from the definition of the word itself. Aired = made public. Moveon.org made the ad public, hence they aired it.
I'm just going to say no one more time and redirect you to the definition of equivocation. Again, context determines definition, not ridiculous arguments. I have said, quoted Moveon.org, and even put in the post you quoted that they posted as part of a public contest. Because I won't let you modify the use of the word 'aired' you insist that I have not accepted what I have accepted over and over and over again. Aired is misapplied and you are using it to create a false impression. Your argument doesn't hold. Aired is not appropriate here. Accept it. That is the one and only exception I have had and you have failed to comprehend. Insistance on that word is a clear indicator that you are exactly aware of what you are doing, thus we are back to equivocation.

Taking the smiley to mena you are kidding I will still point you in the direction of an earlier post pointing out the difference between what happened with moveon and the ad and what happens here. The main point being people post their opinions directly on these forums. Moveon posted the ad after screening it. Not the other way around.

Once, a very young country that begins with a K and ends with an n linked to a site that had some very funny stuff on it, not noticing that there was a link to rather adult things on the same page. That nation immediately deleted the post when another nation sent a t-gram saying, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"

So..... did "K" post porn intentionally? Or did it accidentally slip through? Was their yanking it an admission of guilt or merely doing the right thing once it was made aware?

Once, a very young country that begins with a K and ends with an n linked to a site that had some very funny stuff on it, not noticing that there was a link to rather adult things on the same page. That nation immediately deleted the post when another nation sent a t-gram saying, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"

So..... did "K" post porn intentionally? Or did it accidentally slip through? Was their yanking it an admission of guilt or merely doing the right thing once it was made aware?

Whoa...you just double posted... *cue scary music* It's baaaack! Agh!!!!

Whoa...you just double posted... *cue scary music* It's baaaack! Agh!!!!

LOL, now is there anything underhanded about me having retracted one of those posts? ;)

LOL, now is there anything underhanded about me having retracted one of those posts? ;)

No, o Modly one! But I still tremble in fear of the days when I made a record 9 consecutive repeat posts out of thirty-five tries. *shudders* The horrible forum memories...

Once, a very young country that begins with a K and ends with an n linked to a site that had some very funny stuff on it, not noticing that there was a link to rather adult things on the same page. That nation immediately deleted the post when another nation sent a t-gram saying, "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"

So..... did "K" post porn intentionally? Or did it accidentally slip through? Was their yanking it an admission of guilt or merely doing the right thing once it was made aware?

Thank you, a prime example of what I am talking about. As you will (or perhaps won't depending on whether you have read any of my posts) know I have never claimed moveon.org posted/aired the ad deliberately. I commended them on removing the ad after complaints were received about it. That does not, however, mean that moveon.org was not responsible for posting/airing the ad. They were. They have admitted as much, so why can't Can't Think of a Name admit it?

In answer to your questions. Did "K" post the porn intentionally? Who knows, as with moveon.org, I would give them the benefit of the doubt on that. Did it accidentally slip through? See answer above. Was their yanking it an admission of guilt? Guilty of deliberately posting porn? No. Guilty of posting porn? yes. They did the right thing after they were alerted as moveon did. That does not mean they did not post/air the porn in the first place, because it is evident that they did.

Comprehend?

They have admitted as much, so why can't Can't Think of a Name admit it?


At this point you're just being an idiot. rif

I'm just going to say no one more time and redirect you to the definition of equivocation. Again, context determines definition, not ridiculous arguments. I have said, quoted Moveon.org, and even put in the post you quoted that they posted as part of a public contest. Because I won't let you modify the use of the word 'aired' you insist that I have not accepted what I have accepted over and over and over again. Aired is misapplied and you are using it to create a false impression. Your argument doesn't hold. Aired is not appropriate here. Accept it. That is the one and only exception I have had and you have failed to comprehend. Insistance on that word is a clear indicator that you are exactly aware of what you are doing, thus we are back to equivocation.

I am picturing you yelling this and stamping your feet with your eyes closed. :p

Facts are, I used a perfectly legitimate, broad sweeping definition of "aired". I think it gets up your nose that I won't play using your narrow definition. I have created no false impression, can you show me what false impression I have made considering

I have not said Moveon.org supports the content of the ad in question.

I have commended Moveon.org for taking responsibility for posting/airing the ad and removing it from their website after receiving complaints. I also commended them on apologising for THEIR error in posting/airing the ad.

All I have wanted from the beginning is for people like you to accept what Moveon.org has already admitted. They publicly aired the ad. Moveon.org claimed it was in error and thats fair enough. It does not, however, mean they did not post/air the ad.

As far as equivocation, I would think you are more guilty than I trying to apply a narrow definition of a word with much broader meaning to make your case. I am using the word in a broad sense. aired is appropriate and I stand by its use.

At this point you're just being an idiot. rif

No need for name calling, but you are refusing to acknowledge the obvious. And what does "rif" mean?

I am picturing you yelling this and stamping your feet with your eyes closed. :p

Facts are, I used a perfectly legitimate, broad sweeping definition of "aired". I think it gets up your nose that I won't play using your narrow definition. I have created no false impression, can you show me what false impression I have made considering

I have not said Moveon.org supports the content of the ad in question.

I have commended Moveon.org for taking responsibility for posting/airing the ad and removing it from their website after receiving complaints. I also commended them on apologising for THEIR error in posting/airing the ad.

All I have wanted from the beginning is for people like you to accept what Moveon.org has already admitted. They publicly aired the ad. Moveon.org claimed it was in error and thats fair enough. It does not, however, mean they did not post/air the ad.

As far as equivocation, I would think you are more guilty than I trying to apply a narrow definition of a word with much broader meaning to make your case. I am using the word in a broad sense. aired is appropriate and I stand by its use.
When you use a definition of a word that doesn't apply in the context---when you talk about airing an ad, it does not mean it appears on a website as part of a contest.---there it is. RIF. It doesn't apply. You can stomp your foot and squeeze your eyes all you want.

No need for name calling, but you are refusing to acknowledge the obvious. And what does "rif" mean?
Insisting I haven't accepted what I have because I won't let you redifine a word is idiotic.
RIF (http://www.rif.org/)

Insisting I haven't accepted what I have because I won't let you redifine a word is idiotic.
RIF (http://www.rif.org/)

I am not redefining a word, the definition I am using has been around much longer than I have.
What you are not acknowledging is Moveon's responsibility for posting/airing the ad on theor site after screening it. Moveon have apologised for it, hence acknowledging responsibility yet you continue to bury your head in the sand. Your choice, but it is denying the obvious.

Thanks for the RIF link. Reading is fundamental to learning, perhaps you could re-read where Moveon apologised for posting/airing the ad and learn from it.

So...are you two familiar with the phrase: "Burying the hatchet." I mean, you two obviously aren't getting anywhere. You're at an impasse. Just let it go before you both get warnings for flaming because you let your pride/stubbornness gets the better of you. Jeez.

So...are you two familiar with the phrase: "Burying the hatchet." I mean, you two obviously aren't getting anywhere. You're at an impasse. Just let it go before you both get warnings for flaming because you let your pride/stubbornness get the better of you. Jeez.

LOL...no flaming/flamebaiting here. I agree, however, that we are at an impasse.

Mmmm.... I second that.

..as a Mod or as a fellow poster?

I am not redefining a word, the definition I am using has been around much longer than I have.
What you are not acknowledging is Moveon's responsibility for posting/airing the ad on theor site after screening it. Moveon have apologised for it, hence acknowledging responsibility yet you continue to bury your head in the sand. Your choice, but it is denying the obvious.

Thanks for the RIF link. Reading is fundamental to learning, perhaps you could re-read where Moveon apologised for posting/airing the ad and learn from it.
Ah, now the toilet bowl. Nope, sorry Bob, I have accepted moveon.org's responsability in having the ad on the website. I do not accept your modification of the term 'airing.' It's clear to even the limited reader at this point, the arguments have been made. You have massively mischaracterized the nature of my argument, it's tiresome and I'm hungry. One last time, try not to miss it:

Aired does not apply in this context. I at no time denied they posted it on their website as part of a public contest.

So...are you two familiar with the phrase: "Burying the hatchet." I mean, you two obviously aren't getting anywhere. You're at an impasse. Just let it go before you both get warnings for flaming because you let your pride/stubbornness get the better of you. Jeez.
Mmmm.... I second that.

Ah, now the toilet bowl. Nope, sorry Bob, I have accepted moveon.org's responsability in having the ad on the website. I do not accept your modification of the term 'airing.' It's clear to even the limited reader at this point, the arguments have been made. You have massively mischaracterized the nature of my argument, it's tiresome and I'm hungry. One last time, try not to miss it:

Aired does not apply in this context. I at no time denied they posted it on their website as part of a public contest.

I have not modified the definition of airing, posting in large font does not change that. The fact that it was a public contest has no relevance to them airing it on their website.

I have not modified the definition of airing, posting in large font does not change that. The fact that it was a public contest has no relevance to them airing it on their website.
Context is everything, otherwise you wouldn't be so anxious to remove it.

Context is everything, otherwise you wouldn't be so anxious to remove it.

Context as in, making the ad public?

Here's an article which mentions the Moveon.org ad, for one:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040909/pl_nm/campaign_sticker_dc_1

Want more proof? It's out there...
But as horrible as it is to face, this bumper sticker is the truth.
Name one world leader since Hitler that is hated as much as Bush on an international level. There have been none!
Leaders such as Stalin, Sharon, Saddam, and Milosevic were only hated at a regional level. I am afriad that Bush is the most hated world leader since Hitler on a global level.
Whilst Bin Laden, if you can call him a world leader, is disliked by many people in the world, he is only really hated in the US, in much of the third world he is considered a hero.
If you are offended by the truth, they try to change the world by not voting for Bush, dont try to censure it.

I have not modified the definition of airing, posting in large font does not change that. The fact that it was a public contest has no relevance to them airing it on their website.But your insistence on the use of the word "airing" out of context shows that you have no interest in an actual dialogue on this subject. Just because you personally don't think it's out of context doesn't change the facts on the ground. Both I and CToaN have admitted more than once that Moveon hosted the Hitler ad temporarily as part of a public contest. What we do not agree to is the concept that Moveon "aired" that ad, as the word "aired" is commonly used and understood by the broadcasting community. Your continued insistence that they did according to some broader definition of the word not generally used by the broadcasting doesn't make it so, no matter how long you try to insist it does on this internet forum. Get over it. You're arguing an esoteric point that has no basis in reality, and no one is buying it.

OK. I got one for you. Kerry testifying, under oath, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he personally witnessed and participated in numerous atrocities against Vietnamese civilians. I think its the swift boat vets, along with the Vietnam Vets that feel betrayed by Kerry for his actions. And by the way, I voted for McCain in the primary.

PS - Hermie is my puppet nation.


sigh

How many times do we have to go through this? Bah? Baaaahh?
Look up the testamony, he testified that he had met with a group of Vets. in Detroit a month earlier who has "personally seen.....".

Does anyone fact check before they post or just trust what they hear on TV without understanding how it fits in reality?

But your insistence on the use of the word "airing" out of context shows that you have no interest in an actual dialogue on this subject.

Not true. In fact it is you and others who are insisting on only using YOUR definition of airing. My definition is perfectly legitimate and in context.

Just because you personally don't think it's out of context doesn't change the facts on the ground. Both I and CToaN have admitted more than once that Moveon hosted the Hitler ad temporarily as part of a public contest.

That is a given. I am not asking for confirmation of that as that is obvious. The other obvious fact that Cannot Think of a Name refuses to acknowledge is that Moveon posted the ad on their website. He/She continues to portray it as though Moveon.org had no control over it appearing on their website. That is what I want him/her to acknowledge.

What we do not agree to is the concept that Moveon "aired" that ad, as the word "aired" is commonly used and understood by the broadcasting community. Your continued insistence that they did according to some broader definition of the word not generally used by the broadcasting doesn't make it so, no matter how long you try to insist it does on this internet forum. Get over it. You're arguing an esoteric point that has no basis in reality, and no one is buying it.

Ah, so only narrow definitions are permitted in discussions now. I take aired to mean "made public" as was confirmed by the definition I posted. I find that definition to be perfectly legitimate in the context of this discussion. I am arguing based on fact, you choose to labour on semantics and demanding people use only definitions sanctioned by yourself.

Context as in, making the ad public?
nope, as in when talking about an ad being aired it is broadcasted on a medium that primarily or initially relied on airwaves to broadcast, i.e. television and radio. But you know that, because we've been over and over it. Doesn't fly, Orville.

No Tygaland--I'm insisting on the usage of the word as commonly used within the industry being discussed. Why don't you admit it, Tygaland--you have no honest interest in this discussion. I'm through with it, regardless, and I'd suggest that CToaN drop it as well.

No Tygaland--I'm insisting on the usage of the word as commonly used within the industry being discussed. Why don't you admit it, Tygaland--you have no honest interest in this discussion. I'm through with it, regardless, and I'd suggest that CToaN drop it as well.
Yeah, your right. It's these little mischaracterizations:
The other obvious fact that Cannot Think of a Name refuses to acknowledge is that Moveon posted the ad on their website.

get my goat. I am really hungry now and if I don't go soon I'll miss the Simpsons......

No Tygaland--I'm insisting on the usage of the word as commonly used within the industry being discussed. Why don't you admit it, Tygaland--you have no honest interest in this discussion. I'm through with it, regardless, and I'd suggest that CToaN drop it as well.

The only interest I have in the discussion is having people admit the obvious, Moveon.org "aired", as in "made public", the ad in which Bush was compared to Hitler. That is the extent of my interest so as people will stop attacking people for saying moveon.org aired the ad.
Because a word is "commonly used" in an industry does not mean that the wider meaning cannot be used.
I would have been through with this ages ago but you two kept going at me to use your definitions of a word. I won't do that.

Yeah, your right. It's these little mischaracterizations:


get my goat. I am really hungry now and if I don't go soon I'll miss the Simpsons......

No mischaracterisations, you refuse to admit that Moveon.org were solely responsible for posting the ad on their website. They were, they admitted it. You cannot admit the obvious. That is all this argument, from my point of view, was about. Your intent on trying to dictate what "aired" means was just a smokescreen so as you could avoid the actual point of the discussion.

The only interest I have in the discussion is having people admit the obvious, Moveon.org "aired", as in "made public", the ad in which Bush was compared to Hitler. That is the extent of my interest so as people will stop attacking people for saying moveon.org aired the ad.
Because a word is "commonly used" in an industry does not mean that the wider meaning cannot be used.
I would have been through with this ages ago but you two kept going at me to use your definitions of a word. I won't do that.
I won't stop attacking because your use of the word is bullshit, plain and simple. I refuse to back down on this because according to the accepted use of the word in the broadcast and advertising industry, Moveon did not air that ad. I will never admit that they did, and I will challenge anyone who claims it. So here's your choice--you can back down or we can go like this ad infinitum.

No mischaracterisations, you refuse to admit that Moveon.org were solely responsible for posting the ad on their website. They were, they admitted it. You cannot admit the obvious. That is all this argument, from my point of view, was about. Your intent on trying to dictate what "aired" means was just a smokescreen so as you could avoid the actual point of the discussion.
It's in big ass print, go back-find it. RIF. Pronouns are your friend. See how I once again asserted that moveon.org posted the ad on their site as part of a contest. Try and tell me how that is not accepting that moveon.org posted the ad on the website.

Aired is not appropriate. It does not apply in this context.

It's in big ass print, go back-find it. RIF. Pronouns are your friend. See how I once again asserted that moveon.org posted the ad on their site as part of a contest. Try and tell me how that is not accepting that moveon.org posted the ad on the website.

Aired is not appropriate. It does not apply in this context.

Seems I have lots of friends...reading and pronouns now. You keep qualifiying it with "in a public contest". What does that have to do with moveon.org looking at the ad THEN posting it on their website? Nothing. You refuse to admit they are solely responsible for the ad appearing on their website by trying to say it was not under their control by way of a "public contest". That is not true, they had 100% control over what appeared on their website. They have admitted it by apologising. Deny it all you like.

Aired is appropriate, it applies in this context.

I won't stop attacking because your use of the word is bullshit, plain and simple. I refuse to back down on this because according to the accepted use of the word in the broadcast and advertising industry, Moveon did not air that ad. I will never admit that they did, and I will challenge anyone who claims it. So here's your choice--you can back down or we can go like this ad infinitum.

No, the use of the word is legitimate and in the correct context. I could not care less about the "broadcasting industry" or any other lame attempts to narrow the definition of the word to suit your own purposes. You can keep arguing ad infinitum but it makes no difference. You cannot dictate the meaning of a word. I am using the broad definition, you are trying to narrow the meaning. Thats your choice, but it does not make my definition illegitimate.

Moveon.org made the ad public, hence they aired the ad.

Seems I have lots of friends...reading and pronouns now. You keep qualifiying it with "in a public contest". What does that have to do with moveon.org looking at the ad THEN posting it on their website? Nothing. You refuse to admit they are solely responsible for the ad appearing on their website by trying to say it was not under their control by way of a "public contest". That is not true, they had 100% control over what appeared on their website. They have admitted it by apologising. Deny it all you like.

Aired is appropriate, it applies in this context.

1. Including the context in which the ad was posted is not the same as denying it happened.
1A. It also does not deny the responsability.

2. To use a word that is technically not a lie but gives a false impression is an equivocation. Like using a tagential definition of the word 'aired' for something posted on a website.

The word aired is not appropriate for this situation. It does not apply. Using it creates a false impression by using a tagential definition.

You can stomp your foot and cry 'does so does so does so' all you want. That you are married to that word belies your intention. You are equivocating. Own it.

1. Including the context in which the ad was posted is not the same as denying it happened.
1A. It also does not deny the responsability.

Yes, it deflects responsibility by adding "public competition" every time you mention it. That is not context, it is irrelevant to the fact that moveon aired the ad on their website of their own volition.

2. To use a word that is technically not a lie but gives a false impression is an equivocation. Like using a tagential definition of the word 'aired' for something posted on a website.

It is not a lie and it does not create a false impression. Moveon aired the ad on their website by making it public.

The word aired is not appropriate for this situation. It does not apply. Using it creates a false impression by using a tagential definition.

You can stomp your foot and cry 'does so does so does so' all you want. That you are married to that word belies your intention. You are equivocating. Own it.

If you cast your eyes over this thread you will see that only one person has thrown tantrums...and it wasn't me! Aired was a legitimate and appropriate term to describe what moveon did with the ad on their website. They madde it public. Simple.

What is scummy about it is that they are implying that all those who died over there have died in vain. And that all those who are currently serving over there are wasting their time on a lost cause. I'm sure all the military personell over in Iraq get a warm fuzzy feeling when they see MoveOn.org's crap. Does Party Discipline now impell you to blame the low morale amongst US troops caused by occupation duty on moveon.org?

Yes, it deflects responsibility by adding "public competition" every time you mention it. That is not context, it is irrelevant to the fact that moveon aired the ad on their website of their own volition.



It is not a lie and it does not create a false impression. Moveon aired the ad on their website by making it public.



If you cast your eyes over this thread you will see that only one person has thrown tantrums...and it wasn't me! Aired was a legitimate and appropriate term to describe what moveon did with the ad on their website. They madde it public. Simple.
Context is everything, unless you're attempting an equivocation. And you are. Air is not appropriate in this context. It does not apply.

Try this: When a bottle of wine is opened, it is aired. What kind of aired? Exposed to air. Why is that definition of aired used? Context.

In this context, aired does not apply. Context is important unless you want to create a false impression. By allowing the equivocation to say "Moveon.com aired the ad" the impression is not "I'm using this batshit tangential definition of aired," the impression is that moveon.org ran the ad on television. That is a false impression and why the word is not appropriate here.

Aired is not appropriate. Saying "does so" still does not make it so.

Context is everything, unless you're attempting an equivocation. And you are. Air is not appropriate in this context. It does not apply.

Aired is appropriate. It means "made public". Are you telling me that Moveon.org did not make the ad public by airing it on their website?

Try this: When a bottle of wine is opened, it is aired. What kind of aired? Exposed to air. Why is that definition of aired used? Context.

No, aired also means to be exposed to air. It also means to make public.

In this context, aired does not apply. Context is important unless you want to create a false impression. By allowing the equivocation to say "Moveon.com aired the ad" the impression is not "I'm using this batshit tangential definition of aired," the impression is that moveon.org ran the ad on television. That is a false impression and why the word is not appropriate here.

As have denied they screened the ad on Television your agument has no substance. Moveon made the ad public. Aired means (amongst other things) "to make public". The word is in context and appropriate.

Aired is not appropriate. Saying "does so" still does not make it so.

It is appropriate, simply saying "is not" does not make it inappropriate.

Can you honestly tell me that Moveon.org did not make the ad public by posting it on their website? If not, then my use of the word is appropriate.

You do not make the wine public when you open it. Because of the context, that definition doesn't apply.

Just like in the instance of the moveon.org ad.

no matter how many times you insist it does.

As have denied they screened the ad on Television your agument has no substance. Moveon made the ad public. Aired means (amongst other things) "to make public". The word is in context and appropriate.
It doesn't matter what you deny. It matters what the word used will imply. Using aired implies (not matter which definition you choose to use) that it was aired on television. The reason that context determines definitions is so we all don't have to follow everything we say by "And by air, I mean make public...."

Context determines definition. Using a different definition to make a 'truth' is an equivocation. If you weren't trying to do that we wouldn't be on this merry-go-round since I, moveon.org and it's members have admited to everything else.

It doesn't matter what you deny. It matters what the word used will imply. Using aired implies (not matter which definition you choose to use) that it was aired on television. The reason that context determines definitions is so we all don't have to follow everything we say by "And by air, I mean make public...."

Context determines definition. Using a different definition to make a 'truth' is an equivocation. If you weren't trying to do that we wouldn't be on this merry-go-round since I, moveon.org and it's members have admited to everything else.

Here's where you just completely miss the point. Here's a little history on this thread and why I posted:

In one of the earlier posts, not by me, someone stated that Moveon.org aired the ad. Then they were pounced on. I stated that the use of the word "aired" was legitimate because it meant "to make public". Now, the assumption of context was made by those that objected to this person's post. So, in fact, it is you that is equivocating because you are trying to create your own context for your "truth". The only person who can tell you what the context of the initial statement was is the person who originally posted the comment.
I was pointing out that if they used "aired" to mean "make public" then it is legitimate and those that complained had no grounds. I have no idea what their context was, neither do you. You assume, but you do not know. I am pointing out that the use of the word "aired" was valid under the context I raised. Whether that is their intended context, ask them. Either way, it does not invalidate my reasoning.

You do not make the wine public when you open it. Because of the context, that definition doesn't apply.

Just like in the instance of the moveon.org ad.

no matter how many times you insist it does.

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

Can you honestly tell me that Moveon.org did not make the ad public by posting it on their website? If not, then my use of the word is appropriate.

You haven't answered the question I asked you.

Can you honestly tell me that Moveon.org did not make the ad public by posting it on their website? If not, then my use of the word is appropriate.
make the ad public by posting it on their website?

This sentence is true, using aired is an equivocation. But we've been over that. rif. Why is this sentence true, but aired not appropriate? Here:

by posting it on their website?

Posting is the appropriate term for the medium. Creating a technical truth to create a false impression is equivocation. You're not trying to create a false impression, are you? That would be intellectually dishonest of you.

You post on websites, you air on television/radio. Context determines meaning. Ambiguity creates false impressions. Only people interested in misrepresentation are concerned with removing context. Interested observers would want the proper context in order to understand what happened. Bottom line, if you insist on the word you are trying to create a false impression. Own it.

Here's where you just completely miss the point. Here's a little history on this thread and why I posted:

In one of the earlier posts, not by me, someone stated that Moveon.org aired the ad. Then they were pounced on. I stated that the use of the word "aired" was legitimate because it meant "to make public". Now, the assumption of context was made by those that objected to this person's post. So, in fact, it is you that is equivocating because you are trying to create your own context for your "truth". The only person who can tell you what the context of the initial statement was is the person who originally posted the comment.
I was pointing out that if they used "aired" to mean "make public" then it is legitimate and those that complained had no grounds. I have no idea what their context was, neither do you. You assume, but you do not know. I am pointing out that the use of the word "aired" was valid under the context I raised. Whether that is their intended context, ask them. Either way, it does not invalidate my reasoning.
The reason that poster was pounced on was that he used an incorrect statement. When talking about ads 'aired' means to be broadcast on television or radio. The context determined meaning, just like when I open a bottle of wine, that context determines which meaning is used. S/he, like you, was incorrect. Had the person said that the ad was posted, or even you're ubiquitous 'made public,' they would have been correct, though the latter it could be argued that moveon.org's detractors did a FAR better job of taking it to the public than moveon.org did, but that's another argument. Had the poster meant your meaning s/he would have to use a better word choice because in this context 'aired' implies broadcast.

Your reasoning is, in fact, invalid. There is even a term for it. (Can you guess what it is?)

The reason that poster was pounced on was that he used an incorrect statement. When talking about ads 'aired' means to be broadcast on television or radio. The context determined meaning, just like when I open a bottle of wine, that context determines which meaning is used. S/he, like you, was incorrect. Had the person said that the ad was posted, or even you're ubiquitous 'made public,' they would have been correct, though the latter it could be argued that moveon.org's detractors did a FAR better job of taking it to the public than moveon.org did, but that's another argument. Had the poster meant your meaning s/he would have to use a better word choice because in this context 'aired' implies broadcast.

Your reasoning is, in fact, invalid. There is even a term for it. (Can you guess what it is?)

And "to be made public" fitted that context, hence aired was a valid term. To post something on the website makes it public, hence it is aired.
our interpretation was to see it as meaning TV or radio. However, aired is a broad term, as your wine bottle examples showed, hence aired can be interpreted in many ways. The fact you chose one meaning and the person who made the initial post another does not make you right. Afterall, the initial post determined the context, until that person confirms their context neither you or I are right. I am pointing out that your narrow definition used to attack the original comment was not justified as the term aired can be applied to what moveon.org did with the ad on their website. The definition used shows that. You can keep dribbling on about your perceived context but you do not determine context, the person who posted the original post does.

make the ad public by posting it on their website?

This sentence is true...snip

Thank you for confirming that. Therefore as aired can mean "to make public" the use of the term aired was justified and is valid.

It took a while but you finally got round to admitting the obvious.

Thank you for confirming that. Therefore as aired can mean "to make public" the use of the term aired was justified and is valid.

It took a while but you finally got round to admitting the obvious.

Well golly, since the fact that the ad was posted was admitted, like, long before this stupid argument, something is really clear.

You seem completely incapable of understanding a simple fact:

Creating a technical truth that is misleading is an equivocation. For the umpteenth time, context determines the definition. I am baffled that you are unable to see that. Perhaps you are an auditory learner. Should we record it for you? Perhaps a diagram? Maybe if we made a little film that demonstrates that when you say 'aired' when talking about an ad, it means broadcast on television and radio just like when you say aired when talking about a wine it means exposed to air. If I started selling that wine, distributing it and tried to demonstrate that I was doing that by saying I aired it-everyone would think I opened the wine and have no idea that I meant selling it to the public. Why? Because I used the wrong word in the wrong context. It doesn't matter in the least what I 'intended.' I created a false impression.

Just like you create a false impression when you say Moveon.org aired the ad, which despite whatever intention you want to place on the sentence, is incorrect, because aired implies something in the context. But we've been over this. and over this. So help us help you. What kind of learner are you? Maybe a song?

Doesn't it even phase you a little that there is a term for what you are doing?