Moveon.org Ads Damage Potential of Online Activism

zerodamage

"Many of you may have heard about Moveon.org's call for web advertisements illustrating why George Bush should be thrown out of office. Now spreading the net like wildfire comes news that two of the ads shown by Moveon liken George Bush to Hitler. I'll try to make this simple, for the simple-minded.

It's filth like this that gives internet activism a bad name. Not only are the characterizations untrue, but they bring out the worst in a medium that could be used positively - or at least with an ounce of class."

Source: Techfocus


Now get used to this garbage from the left. The hatred for Bush is so profound that this is the type of crap that the haters will say and do. Their website name is perfect though. The name "moveon" is perfect, it's just too bad those nuts at that website do not follow their own advice. Bush won in 2000, every independant news souce that counted verified this. Move On.

bird chest

Good post

I completely agree so much bs spuse from the far left about bush that it is rediculous.

laggerific

The beautiful thing about a democracy is that it allows us to hear all sorts of interesting ideas...and not all of them are going to appeal to you. But these are the 'sacrifices' that one makes for a healthy democracy.

Now, MoveOn sponsered an ad contest that was trying to come up with a campaign to get rid of George W. Bush. A reasonable demand, I am sure, and the right would prolly have adopted the same thing to attack a democrat in the office, even if he/she had a good track record...something that Bush is lacking (saddam's capture aside), so I don't see the campaign being all that bad of an idea. The situation gets even better, though. MoveOn allowed people like you to vote on all these user made ads, as in homebrew commercials. Guess what...the offending ads that everyone is freaking out about didn't get voted on by the mass group of 'crazed' lefties that are a part of MoveOn.org...so, say what you want about the lefties, at least more often than not they are trying to find the facts to back up their claims, so the Hitler comparisons failed.

I don't like what Bush has done to our country, and the facts are pretty much against him, but you probably don't know them because you most likely take all of your talking points from the so called liberal media.

Bush doesn't deserve to be called a hitler, but he certainly doesn't deserve any great honors either, especially a 2nd term. That isn't based off of radical comparisons, that's based off of what he has done to our country in the years he's 'ruled' them. He is not a uniter, but a divider...please provide at least one example where that is not the case. Can you provide some examples of BS about Bush that is provided by his opposition? It would allow these issues to be properly debated.

Also, as for Bush winning in 2000...you might want to check out a little muckraker known as Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com) for information on how he won, and the dirty tricks surrounding that election.

zerodamage

You keep saying Bush ruined our country and ruled. How about backing up such things with facts, examples...?

Bush ruled? Sorry but he was elected. And if the best the left has is Howard Dean, then there will be a second term.

BWX

Yeah, and I don't have to agree with it either---

On top of that, moveon.crap or whatever it's called is just showing how stupid they are with that crap. I saw the ad last week on the Factor. It was "ridiculous".

Dyre Straits

One of the 'interesting' things is how the liberal left accuses the conservative right of being so intolerant and hateful. Need I say more?

BWX

Well those people are trying to destroy the country, they deserve no tolerance. I mean look, they compare Bush to Hitler, our elected commander in chief is compared to a murderous tyrant. It's ridiculous in every sense of the word. They try to say that saying Christmas or praying in school might "offend" someone, but they feel it's OK to trash the leader of the free world. I say their ideas are what you might call "ass-backward". People have died so they have the freedom and right to spew that garbage and thats fine, but they are still responsible for what they say. Nothing is free, you have to remember that.

bird chest

Nice post. It reminds me of Berkley being nuclear free... Yeah and somone at war is going to go oh they are nuke free guys we can't drop the bomb. For anyone who reads this and has no idea where Berkley is it is a city in California.

laggerific

See...what you saw on the Factor was something that anybody could have produced. They could easily have shown an ad of Bush being compared to bird crap...the issue is that MoveOn.org made a request for people to voice their feelings through advertisements, then people, any people, voted for them...the hitler ones lost.

The intolerance I have is for the relative incompetence (notice I didn't call him the anti-christ) that this president has shown and comparing it to the rights disdain for homosexuals and their attempts to pursue happiness and freedom and liberty just shows how untrue your statements about the lefts intolerance is. The left is trying to extend the freedoms of America to all individuals that are currently living in this country.

One example of why Bush is a bad president is his desire to define marriage/civil unions as between a man and a woman. As a president who promised to unite, there is nothing more devisive than to try and separate people that love each other and prevent them from having the same rights afforded to them that other sometimes less loving people. Clinton didn't help that situation much, but at least he didn't deteriorate it. The issue goes beyond the financial well-being of the people, but down to who has the legal right to be the guardian of the person if they are injured, and so many other necessities of a loving couple. And why it's such an important issue, because such prejudice is antithetical to his oath of office.

The secrecy is another aspect of why the White House is such a dark place right now. Cheney's energy task force? Why the secrecy? I mean, it's not like we don't already know about Bush and y'alls (cheney and pals) close ties to Ken Lay and folk...oh wait, maybe that's why.

Let's see...the fact that this administration ignored so many warnings prior to 911...warnings from former members of Clintons staff...people with info. The various attempts to stifle progress on the ecological front, I mean it's true that we are poisoning our air and water...why is he rolling back the provisions? The tax cuts? Oh yeah, they'll create jobs...er...wait. Ah, Leave no Child Behind: Let's see...pass a bill that is popular, but don't fund it...now that's frugal. But then again...he always had the best opportunities for education, doesn't everybody?

Obviously I am not going to convince you guys of anything...I look at the job done, not the man's personal beliefs (unless they interfere with what America is), I look at the things he has done, and I see someone not worthy of his title. The man believes that god is leading him on this path...well, that may be, but leave him/her out of this, the people of this nation need a real leader...not sure when the last time god helped balance the budget was. Also, regarding the religious thing...how is jesus any different than a Berkeley hippy? He was the ultimate hippy, bringing love and joy to all. As I said, I am not going to convince you...you will prolly receive this with as much disdain as I receive the right talking points...at least these are real issues that affect real people, not issues based on the color of someone's argyle sweater, or shoes, or a minority's controversial view of the president.

I am curious, and I mean this with the utmost sincerity...do you all have any thoughts? I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but please be factual. Also, let's keep it civilized.

Berkeley also claims to be a drug free zone...I don't think so. But the nuclear free Berkeley refers to the aspect of harnessing nuclear power. They are against it...and Wal-Marts too.

Also, technically, Bush was selected by the Supreme Court. If you tallied the 'lost' votes and all those people who were refused their rightful votes then he would have lost...not by a huge margin, but nonetheless.

The people that died to defend this country did so to protect more than just speech, but the American way, the way that says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This administration doesn't believe in key tenants of our key documents: separation of church and state, the quote from before about pursuing liberty and happiness (homosexual unions, a healthy economy) and in many cases life. I guess that's one thing that we are agreed on, I really do appreciate those who knew what this country was about and loved it so much they were willing to put their lives on the line for it.

" moveon.crap or whatever it's called is just showing how stupid they are with that crap." And so are you if you aren't willing to read what I said about the fact that the ad was created by an average person and then voted down by the rest of the moveon.org members (who could be anybody since it's open to all).

"And if the best the left has is Howard Dean, then there will be a second term." That's a debate I would love to see.

BWX

See...what you saw on the Factor was something that anybody could have produced.
================ ==================== ================= ==========

well who made it then it? Who supported it first?


The left is trying to extend the freedoms of America to all individuals that are currently living in this country.
===================== =================== ============== ===================

HUH?


One example of why Bush is a bad president is his desire to define marriage/civil unions as between a man and a woman.
================= =============== =============== ================= ============

Ok, who invented marriage? If a guy wanted to marry his horse would it be OK too? What about his son or daughter? What about it a guy wanted to marry his truck? Is that OK too? Where do you draw the line?
Let the Homosexuals have a legal civil union with all the legal benefits. Don't call it marriage. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, the way God intended it. If you don't believe in God, you shouldn't care about marriage. Marriage is a male and female, there is natural scheme here.. Call the union of a male and a male or female and female something else and leave it at that.. Don't redefine a word so you fit into it.

What if my pursuit of happiness was to marry 450 women and keep them as slaves in a dungeon and they agreed to it and it didn't hurt anyone, should that legal too? What about the religious nuts who marry 35 women, some sisters and soem mother/daughters, should that be legal and called marriage?







Berkeley also claims to be a drug free zone...I don't think so. But the nuclear free Berkeley refers to the aspect of harnessing nuclear power. They are against it...and Wal-Marts too.
==================== ================== =================== =============
Ok, whatever man. Take any acid lately? lol-- I don't know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't make sense.








The people that died to defend this country did so to protect more than just speech, but the American way, the way that says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
============== =============== ============== ============== ============\

Oh, unless the pursuit of happiness means displaying an American flag? In some places the same organization you defend is trying to stop it-

Unless it's displaying a Nativity? oh wait, that might "offend" someone- can't have that. I guess the "pursuit of happiness" is a one way street with the liberal left..

If it offends anyone BUT white Christian men it's ok --that's the view of the liberal left..

-- WTF ---are you blind?

I'm all for letting people live their lives- but don't shove your views on me and I won't shove my views on you, this should be the way everybody looks at it- any other way is discriminatory.

laggerific

See...what you saw on the Factor was something that anybody could have produced.
================ ==================== ================= ==========

well who made it then it? Who supported it first? [--It's preposterous to say that MoveOn.org is responsible for the thoughts of individuals in an open forum. I think that the person who created the ad was unwise in their choice, but it certainly doesn't merit self-censorship on the part of MoveOn. Now if it contained detailed instructions on how to kill people, then it enters another level of discourse, one that merits the interception of MoveOn]


The left is trying to extend the freedoms of America to all individuals that are currently living in this country.
===================== =================== ============== ===================

HUH? [--They are trying to bring the freedoms that some people enjoy in this country to all the other people that our administration has disenfranchised...the poor, the minorities, the persecuted, etc. Basically, trying not to trample on others freedoms. This includes not forcing our views on other sovereign nations who are no direct threat to us(like the influence we are trying to push on Canada to prevent them from pursuing medical marijuana).]


One example of why Bush is a bad president is his desire to define marriage/civil unions as between a man and a woman.
================= =============== =============== ================= ============

Ok, who invented marriage? If a guy wanted to marry his horse would it be OK too? What about his son or daughter? What about it a guy wanted to marry his truck? Is that OK too? Where do you draw the line?
Let the Homosexuals have a legal civil union with all the legal benefits. Don't call it marriage. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, the way God intended it. If you don't believe in God, you shouldn't care about marriage. Marriage is a male and female, there is natural scheme here.. Call the union of a male and a male or female and female something else and leave it at that.. Don't redefine a word so you fit into it.

What if my pursuit of happiness was to marry 450 women and keep them as slaves in a dungeon and they agreed to it and it didn't hurt anyone, should that legal too? What about the religious nuts who marry 35 women, some sisters and soem mother/daughters, should that be legal and called marriage?

---
[Woah, looks like we are getting into Rick Santorum territory here....comparing homosexual relations to bestiality really hurts your point. Anyway, call it what you want, they just want to be able to have a legally binding union, if they have concerns about their religions definition of marriage they should take it up with their religious leaders. Bush is the one that is trying to define marriage for all belief systems out there. I am trying to extend the freedoms of people, not draw the lines around them, so we should have the utmost scrutiny when we try to limit what people can do. The choice to allow two consensual people join together to enjoy life together is a far cry from someone trying to get a legally binding document to wed 450 women/men. Also, people and their cars already have legally binding documents (registration), so those who want to have deeper relationships with their vehicles can rest assured that they are taken care of.]


Berkeley also claims to be a drug free zone...I don't think so. But the nuclear free Berkeley refers to the aspect of harnessing nuclear power. They are against it...and Wal-Marts too.
==================== ================== =================== =============
Ok, whatever man. Take any acid lately? lol-- I don't know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't make sense. [--That's cool, it was way past my bedtime when I wrote that. They are saying that they don't do any nuclear testing and development (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/onlines...arFreeForm.pdf). And the Wal-Mart reference was regarding the county's ban on supercenters, something that they see as damaging to a local community, not sure why I brought it up there, though.]



The people that died to defend this country did so to protect more than just speech, but the American way, the way that says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
============== =============== ============== ============== ============\

Oh, unless the pursuit of happiness means displaying an American flag? In some places [Which places?] the same organization you defend is trying to stop it-

Unless it's displaying a Nativity? oh wait, that might "offend" someone- can't have that. I guess the "pursuit of happiness" is a one way street with the liberal left.. [--It depends on where that nativity is seen. There is supposed to be the separation of church and state, so if the nativity, which is wholly a Christian idea, is at a public school then I can understand why people would be concerned. People being upset about that is not based on their intolerance for christianity, but the perception that our government wholly endorses one religion over another, and concerns that religious beliefs may taint our secular nation. They believe in the basic principal of the separation of church and state, all the way down to its core meaning.]

If it offends anyone BUT white Christian men it's ok --that's the view of the liberal left.. [--the vocal minority of people who get outraged and offended easily does not represent the left. Also, I think you may want to clarify your statement, I don't think that most liberals are really all that concerned about offending white christian men.]

-- WTF ---are you blind? [--I feel the same way when people can look fondly at our pResident and not ask themselves WTF!!???]

I'm all for letting people live their lives- but don't shove your views on me and I won't shove my views on you, this should be the way everybody looks at it- any other way is discriminatory. [--So you are saying that you won't offend (shove indicates some offense, which is why I replaced it here) me with your views if I don't offend you with mine? Not sure if you were trying to play your own devil's advocate, but are you saying that you don't want an open discourse, or you want a discourse where people can freely propose ideas, but only those that don't offend you (such as the hitler comparison)?]


__________________

zerodamage

I am not going to bother responding to your other leftist nonsense. You hate Bush and your opinions will be based on that hatred.

As for your above statement. Nothing could be more wrong. So many news sources did their own recount and found that Bush won, even counting the bs hanging chads and everything else. Please keep to the facts or your other opinions will not be very valid to me. Your undying hatred of Bush has already made me not really care as it is.

Dyre Straits

As Zerodamage has stated, all the official and media recounts of the votes in Florida show that Bush won the State of Florida. As such, he ALSO won the Electoral College. It is the Electoral College that determines the outcome of the national election....NOT the popular vote.

The argument that Gore got more popular votes (and therefore 'should' have won the presidency) is a moot point. The Rules of Elections cannot be changed just because the outcome isn't what certain people wanted. The Supreme Court ruled on the RULES and therefore only confirmed the legitimate outcome of the votes PER the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. The Supreme Court did not 'select' the new president. To argue so is only sour grapes and bears no legitimacy.

laggerific

I hate ignorance and the pursuit thereof. Thus I have disdain for Bush, but he has the potential to turn it all around, although chances are he's not going to go down that road.

It's convenient that you are sticking to the facts as presented by our media. Did I forget to mention that the media is by and large been Rupertized (Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox and heaps of other media outlets). That is, a republican with a lot of power who wants to keep that power is promoting a certain viewpoint. But if you read Greg Palast you will see that he has heaps upon heaps of factual documentation that spells it out in plain non-conspiracy minded English: Gore was robbed.

But this isn't about Gore and Bush anymore, it's about what Bush is doing with the power he was given, entrusted with by the people of this nation, and the fact that he doesn't have their best interests in mind when he makes policy decisions really upsets me.

Feel the love, not the hate...I am trying to say that I don't agree with his policy decisions...it's his affect on this nation that I hate.

zerodamage

Yup, the Republicans own all media. Time, NY Times, them all. I forgot that.

laggerific

I said it was largely, not wholly, owned by the right.

zerodamage

Sorry but liberals own more of the media than republicans. That is a fact that is largely ignored. You do not want me to post up the facts, but if you want, I can do it later when I get home. Actually, I will anyway. Tonight when I am off of work. It will blow your mind how big the liberal bias is.

BWX

LOL, what about NPR? a publicly funded leftist radio station.. Please laggerific, Fox wouldn't be so popular if people didn't choose to watch it and on soem level agree with it's FAIR AND BALANCED views. They have people on both sides and down the middle too. They are just people who generally use their own brains to think with, not the left wing media's version of what their brains SHOULD be.... (man, I surprise myself sometimes, especially after being awake for 28 hours after 4 hours of sleep)

I watch CNN and Headline news once in a while, for a lefty laugh.



edit- man, I'm loopy now, I need sleep.

BWX

That will be an interesting report!

BWX

Well yeah, I do say that, but probably because of the only things he does that you agree with..

Maybe, can't be sure, but it's a possibility.

bluelight

Ehhhhhhhhhh......

In which way is this worse tha the way the republican establishment and the republican press pictured european leaders as nazis when they refused to abide to the dictates made by the extreme