FEC complaint against Moveon.org [Archive]

trumptman

09-18-2007, 08:27 PM

ACU Files FEC Complaint Against MoveOn.org Political Action and the New York Times Company for Committing Clear Violations of Federal Election Laws

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American
Conservative Union (ACU) chairman David A. Keene announced today that ACU
has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against
MoveOn.org Political Action and the New York Times Company for violation of
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended and the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
On Monday, September 10, 2007, MoveOn sponsored a full-page
advertisement in the New York Times attacking General David Petraeus prior
to his report to Congress regarding the status of the United States
military operations in Iraq. The open rate for a full-page black and white
advertisement in the New York Times is $181,692. MoveOn only paid $65,000
for the ad, according to multiple press reports.
The New York Times Company's "discount" is in effect a corporate soft
money contribution to a federal political committee. MoveOn's acceptance of
this corporate soft money contribution exceeds federal contributions and is
a clear violation of FEC laws.
"ACU demands a full and thorough investigation of the cost of the Ad
and the discount given by the New York Times Company to MoveOn.org
Political Action, for payment by MoveOn of the usual and normal charge for
the costs of the Ad and the requisite civil money penalty for violation of
federal law by each of the Respondents," ACU Chairman David A. Keene stated
in the FEC complaint. The complaint may be viewed at the ACU website:
http://www.conservative.org.

Yes, we know that the people asking for the investigation are conservative. Yes we know they would hate Moveon.org no matter what they did.

Now that we have killing the messenger out of the way, is the claim itself valid in any form or fashion. If the ad normally costs X amount and it is discovered that a greatly reduced rate of Y is paid, is that a hidden soft money political contribution?

Nick

SDW2001

09-18-2007, 09:34 PM

I read the complaint and it looks like one issue is whether the rate paid was abnormally low.

Apparently, there's some dispute about that.

SOME dispute..not much. Their normal rate is X and they charged 50% of X.

As for the claim, I think that if they don't offer the same deal to the opposition, there might well be merit. We'll see.

SDW2001

09-18-2007, 09:54 PM

It depends.

The normal rate is X when Y.

That's probably illegal too.

Everything I've heard is that the normal rate was $180K something or other. They paid 60 something. I was wondering about offering the same deal to the opposition. I think you're right...probably illegal too.

mydo

09-18-2007, 10:14 PM

The real story is that the NYT DOESN'T get the full rate. But they don't want people to know it. :D

addabox

09-18-2007, 10:21 PM

SOME dispute..not much. Their normal rate is X and they charged 50% of X.

As for the claim, I think that if they don't offer the same deal to the opposition, there might well be merit. We'll see.

NYT offered same rate to Giulliani when he took out an ad berating MoveOn. (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=120480)

But MoveOn bought its ad on a "standby" basis, under which it can ask for a day and placement in the paper but doesn't get any guarantees. Standby pricing doesn't appear on the Times rate card -- but that kind of ad at a standby rate turns out to run about $65,000.

And that's what the Giuliani campaign paid as well, according to one person close to the Times, for its counter ad today berating MoveOn and, in turn, Hillary Clinton for refusing to denounce the "Betray Us" ad.

A campaign spokeswoman declined to say what the Giuliani campaign paid but said it was told by the newspaper that it was being charged the same standard rate MoveOn was charged. "This was an opportunity for the mayor to draw attention to what was an egregious ad that targeted Gen. Patraeus," she said. "It allowed us to defend him and point out that Democratic candidates have done nothing to condemn the MoveOn.org ad about an American hero."

Anything else?

SDW2001

09-18-2007, 10:30 PM

NYT offered same rate to Giulliani when he took out an ad berating MoveOn. (http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=120480)

Anything else?

Yes, actually. Does it really surprise you that he got the same rate...AFTER the blowup about this? Please.

Fellowship

09-18-2007, 11:14 PM

SDW2001

09-18-2007, 11:25 PM

You all are weak...

My opinion is that WHO THE HELL cares what moveon.org said in the ad of who the hell cares newspaper?

We as americans have the right to say what the hell we want. This is not a dictatorship regime where we are restricted of free speech.

So what if the guy has a wonderful reputation and moveon.org does not. Each group / person should stand on their own merits and the public should be able to know the difference without every conservative and conservative on AM radio in fake outrage mode...

Bullshit I call on this so-called outrage.

You know,,, I find it less than honest how bent out of shape these so-called conservatives (NEOCONS) get when somebody mocks the name of a public servant yet these same people think some in the realm of islam are nuts when they take offense to when a cartoon mocks an important figure of their faith. You better believe it we are talking doulble standards here.

Fellows

1. My outrage is not mock outrage. The ad was shameful and disgusting.

2. You do NOT have the right to say "whatever you want." There are laws. while I may not agree with certain laws limiting political speech (McCain-Feingold for example), they are still the laws on the books. They must be followed.

3. I DO CARE about the ad and what was said. They preemptively attacked the commander of American forces in Iraq, essentially calling the man a traitor. They just called the leader of 160,000 American troops a liar while those same troops are out fighting a dying. Things like this actually get Americans killed indirectly.

And really fellows, never tell us about being "weak again." Your posts are so sanctimonious and touchy-feely I'd swear they were written by a fluffy pony with a pink mane and fuzzy slippers.

mydo

09-18-2007, 11:30 PM

Anyone think these FEC laws aren't such a good idea? As far as I can tell they are only used as political weapons.

Fellowship

09-18-2007, 11:33 PM

1. My outrage is not mock outrage. The ad was shameful and disgusting.

2. You do NOT have the right to say "whatever you want." There are laws. while I may not agree with certain laws limiting political speech (McCain-Feingold for example), they are still the laws on the books. They must be followed.

3. I DO CARE about the ad and what was said. They preemptively attacked the commander of American forces in Iraq, essentially calling the man a traitor. They just called the leader of 160,000 American troops a liar while those same troops are out fighting a dying. Things like this actually get Americans killed indirectly.

And really fellows, never tell us about being "weak again." Your posts are so sanctimonious and touchy-feely I'd swear they were written by a fluffy pony with a pink mane and fuzzy slippers.

sanctimonious is when you put the troops on a pedestal and take away the right to question the policy which directs their actions in given theater.

Americans have the right to question their leaders. If we did not we would still be British.

I mean if one can not question the motives of their government then I guess that means that when Hillary becomes president and she says you must have health insurrance you are not to question her but rather admire her and lick her boots?

Right?

Fellows

Ptrash

09-19-2007, 01:59 AM

Yes, we know that the people asking for the investigation are conservative. Yes we know they would hate Moveon.org no matter what they did.

Now that we have killing the messenger out of the way, is the claim itself valid in any form or fashion. If the ad normally costs X amount and it is discovered that a greatly reduced rate of Y is paid, is that a hidden soft money political contribution?

Nick

Why is MoveOn being treated as a political party? I thought they were just an anti-war advocacy group. Maybe I missed something--are they fielding a bunch of candidates?

BTW, never underestimate the power of the right in this country. They have the bucks, power and the will to fuck with anyone they disagree with. The rightward drift of the country over the past 30 years is proof enough. I know some of you will disagree, saying no, it's just the American people coming toi their senses. Sorry, that'd be giving way too much credit to the electorate, and disrespecting the powers of mainstream institutions. Again, I turn to the recent halting of trhe right-wing progresssion, and slight correction back to the left. These people have learned to fine-tune the American electorate as well as they control the economy.

When I momentarily forget about the realities of social engineering I stumble upon websites like this one (http://www.kaushik.net/avinash), that remind me how extensive the manipulation of the marketplace is: Advanced Web Analytics, Competitive Intelligence Analysis, Experimentation and Testing (A/B, Multivariate etc), ClickStream & Outcomes Analysis, Customer Satisfaction measurement & VOC analysis, Web Research (Lab Usability, Site Visits, Heuristic Evaluations etc., sure some of this stuff is specific to the net, but I suspect most is based on tools developed for other business/organizational systems (except for VOC analysis, about which I'm clueless)

addabox

09-19-2007, 03:02 PM

Yes, actually. Does it really surprise you that he got the same rate...AFTER the blowup about this? Please.

"Please"? As in, "Come now, anyone can see through this transparent ruse"?

By all means, elaborate. I'm assuming the notorious liberal mouthpiece Ad Age is simply shilling for MoveOn when they explain about the whole "standby rate" thing?

Ever since the Dan Rather Signature Event in the History of Citizen Journalism™ the bloggers of the right have been somewhat addled by the conceit that they are forensic geniuses, cutting through the smog the Teh Liberal Media™ with their razor sharp sleuthing skills. Over and over again they (and, inevitably, some of the posters here), proudly announce a new victory against the Stalinist disinformation campaigns of the Media That Inexplicably Hates America and Loves Terrorists, only to find, over and over again, that they have made some basic error or missed some basic, but critical, bit of information.

But are they chastised? Are they more careful next time? Do they fear their credibility might be somewhat tarnished? Hell no! Why? Their target demographic doesn't care! They all know just how evil and base the liberals are, so if allegations are made that aren't supported by facts, well, it could have just as well been true.

I think that's the signature trait of the new rightwing blogo-media-verse: "facts" are optional. The only truly knowable thing is that liberals are scum that will stop at nothing to destroy this great country. Within that narrative, all crimes are provisionally true, until proven otherwise, and even then the jury must remain out because you never know just how deep the liberal hold on "reality" really goes. Never back down, just shift the conversation to a meta-critique that shows how, even if a given scandal never happened, it might have happened, it just as easily could have happened, which is practically the same thing as "happening".

In fact, maybe it did happen and people broke into offices and changed records and information was suppressed and You Know What Those Liberals Are Capable Of.

The great thing about it is it helps keep the indignation levels sky high. I doubt that many of the consumers of missives on liberal's latest crimes against humanity every really bother to go back and tally up the hits and misses, it's just all part of a circle-jerk of white-hot fury fueled by apocryphal tales of malfeasance.

Call it "The WMD Are In Syria" culture.. Or, you know, "The Batshit Crazy Paranoid Loon" style, if you prefer. Whichever.

Northgate

09-19-2007, 03:33 PM

An ad! They put out an ad! In a newspaper!

Jubelum

09-19-2007, 05:01 PM

I wonder if NumbersUSA could get the same rate?

trumptman

09-19-2007, 05:28 PM

Why is MoveOn being treated as a political party? I thought they were just an anti-war advocacy group. Maybe I missed something--are they fielding a bunch of candidates?

MoveOn is a political advocacy committee or a PAC and as such must track their donations, expenditures and file reports of each.

You can take a peak here. (http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00341396)

That said the question wasn't about whether Moveon.org is awesome or stinks, or whether the NY Times is neato or yucky. The question was if the ad normally costs X amount and it is discovered that a greatly reduced rate of Y is paid, is that a hidden soft money political contribution?

It doesn't matter if Giulliani got the same rate as well. The question did not attempt to pin this on one party or person.

If you are an advocate of campaign spending limits, shouldn't that mean there is an obligation to insure similar rates are charged for the advertising as well? It doesn't make sense to regulate the collection, and then let the spending rates vary.

Nick

Jubelum

09-19-2007, 05:49 PM

MoveOn is a political advocacy committee or a PAC and as such must track their donations, expenditures and file reports of each.

You can take a peak here. (http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00341396)

That said the question wasn't about whether Moveon.org is awesome or stinks, or whether the NY Times is neato or yucky. The question was if the ad normally costs X amount and it is discovered that a greatly reduced rate of Y is paid, is that a hidden soft money political contribution?

It doesn't matter if Giulliani got the same rate as well. The question did not attempt to pin this on one party or person.

If you are an advocate of campaign spending limits, shouldn't that mean there is an obligation to insure similar rates are charged for the advertising as well? It doesn't make sense to regulate the collection, and then let the spending rates vary.

Nick

Damn it, Nick, you're screwing the pooch again. Campaign Finance Reform only matters when we can get those Republican meanies and their corporate donations on the front page. tsk. tsk. tsk.

McCain Feingold was expressly written to damage the right more than the left. Thankfully, we're getting some of our 1st Amendment rights back piecemeal with the SCOTUS decision.

addabox

09-19-2007, 06:29 PM

MoveOn is a political advocacy committee or a PAC and as such must track their donations, expenditures and file reports of each.

You can take a peak here. (http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00341396)

That said the question wasn't about whether Moveon.org is awesome or stinks, or whether the NY Times is neato or yucky. The question was if the ad normally costs X amount and it is discovered that a greatly reduced rate of Y is paid, is that a hidden soft money political contribution?

It doesn't matter if Giulliani got the same rate as well. The question did not attempt to pin this on one party or person.

If you are an advocate of campaign spending limits, shouldn't that mean there is an obligation to insure similar rates are charged for the advertising as well? It doesn't make sense to regulate the collection, and then let the spending rates vary.

Nick

And the answer is: the rate paid by MoveOn was the standard standby rate charged by the NYT, open to all comers who are willing to accept the limitations of standby status.

Continuing to pretend like there are larger issues that need hashing out is disingenuous.

addabox

09-19-2007, 06:34 PM

Damn it, Nick, you're screwing the pooch again. Campaign Finance Reform only matters when we can get those Republican meanies and their corporate donations on the front page. tsk. tsk. tsk.

McCain Feingold was expressly written to damage the right more than the left. Thankfully, we're getting some of our 1st Amendment rights back piecemeal with the SCOTUS decision.

Huh? The thread is about how the NYT supposedly gave MoveOn advantageous rates for an ad, so the only "front page" treatment is coming from Nick.

The fact that the original assertion- that there were advantageous rates-- is false, so the idea that this is an instance of looking the other way because it isn't about Republican meanies is meaningless. Not that something like that appears to ever be a detriment to having a nice big conversation about the nearly inhuman hypocrisy of liberals.

Jubelum

09-19-2007, 07:59 PM

Huh? The thread is about how the NYT supposedly gave MoveOn advantageous rates for an ad, so the only "front page" treatment is coming from Nick.

The fact that the original assertion- that there were advantageous rates-- is false, so the idea that this is an instance of looking the other way because it isn't about Republican meanies is meaningless. Not that something like that appears to ever be a detriment to having a nice big conversation about the nearly inhuman hypocrisy of liberals.

Its about money, politics, and how we have constructed "fairness" in our system. The situation with the NYT and MoveOn to the Next Clinton is just an illustration of how little has changed for certain groups. Is is all that hard to believe that this stuff happens? Mc-F would work, if the media was not running smear campaigns and political spin as "news."

So there. :p

<insert retort about how the media is not liberal, even when the polls of media members and accountings of their donations show emphatically that they are..>

SDW2001

09-19-2007, 08:39 PM

sanctimonious is when you put the troops on a pedestal and take away the right to question the policy which directs their actions in given theater.

Americans have the right to question their leaders. If we did not we would still be British.

I mean if one can not question the motives of their government then I guess that means that when Hillary becomes president and she says you must have health insurrance you are not to question her but rather admire her and lick her boots?

Right?

Fellows

Ridiculous stawman. RIDICULOUS. At no time have I claimed that it's not OK to question our leaders. At no time have I taken issue with someone expressing their opinion that the troops should come home other than on the merits of the argument itself. You know this full well, and your use of the giant strawman is pathetic.

What I DO take issue with are political leaders publicly saying the troops have failed, the war is lost, the Commander in Chief is brain dead, he lied, etc, etc...all while those troops are fighting and dying the field. That's not "questioning." It's defeatism. It's anti-American. It's exactly the opposite of the ideals this country expressed during past major conflicts.

addabox

09-19-2007, 08:46 PM

Its about money, politics, and how we have constructed "fairness" in our system. The situation with the NYT and MoveOn to the Next Clinton is just an illustration of how little has changed for certain groups. Is is all that hard to believe that this stuff happens? Mc-F would work, if the media was not running smear campaigns and political spin as "news."

So there. :p

<insert retort about how the media is not liberal, even when the polls of media members and accountings of their donations show emphatically that they are..>

Well, there's certainly a discussion to be had about those things, but my point is that the thread topic isn't an illustration of anything, other than the fact that the NYT offers discount rates for standby advertising.

You're sort of making my other point with your willingness to go right past the salient facts, in this instance, and onto dark musings about the librul media.

I'm saying that the right does this quite a bit, actually, to the point where one starts to wonder just how much of the stock attitudes re the leftist menace are built out of just this kind of "illustration"-- one that derives whatever explanatory power you imagine it possesses, not from the facts at hand, but from an a priori framework that purports to make the transgression "likely" and "typical" but seems largely and self reflexively constructed out of a constellation of other, no less dubious anecdotes.

Northgate

09-19-2007, 08:51 PM

SDW2001

09-19-2007, 08:56 PM

"Please"? As in, "Come now, anyone can see through this transparent ruse"?

By all means, elaborate. I'm assuming the notorious liberal mouthpiece Ad Age is simply shilling for MoveOn when they explain about the whole "standby rate" thing?

I'm just saying the timing is rather convenient. That's all.

Ever since the Dan Rather Signature Event in the History of Citizen Journalism™ the bloggers of the right have been somewhat addled by the conceit that they are forensic geniuses, cutting through the smog the Teh Liberal Media™ with their razor sharp sleuthing skills. Over and over again they (and, inevitably, some of the posters here), proudly announce a new victory against the Stalinist disinformation campaigns of the Media That Inexplicably Hates America and Loves Terrorists, only to find, over and over again, that they have made some basic error or missed some basic, but critical, bit of information.

I think you're making a big mistake in condemning all conservatives who question the accuracy and fairness of The Media. There are countless examples of bias, many of which I've listed here over the years. Now, I do see where you're coming from: The right does tend to "jump on" the MSM about these things, some of which turn out not be what they seemed. That doesn't automatically invalidate all criticism of the media though, nor make it more accurate/fair than it is.

But are they chastised? Are they more careful next time? Do they fear their credibility might be somewhat tarnished? Hell no! Why? Their target demographic doesn't care! They all know just how evil and base the liberals are, so if allegations are made that aren't supported by facts, well, it could have just as well been true.

I think that the bias that exists in the media has made the right trigger happy. They see a story that appears to indicate something egregious...but later more facts come to light and well, that's that. I don't know what you mean by chastised exactly, since most of these people are average everyday folks.

I think that's the signature trait of the new rightwing blogo-media-verse: "facts" are optional.

That's silly.

The only truly knowable thing is that liberals are scum that will stop at nothing to destroy this great country.

Well...I can name about a dozen right now that I think might actually be out to do that, so....

Within that narrative, all crimes are provisionally true, until proven otherwise, and even then the jury must remain out because you never know just how deep the liberal hold on "reality" really goes.

Hmm...you mean like the Duke Lacrosse case? I seem to remember a SHITLOAD of liberal professors signing on to that snow job, you?

Never back down, just shift the conversation to a meta-critique that shows how, even if a given scandal never happened, it might have happened, it just as easily could have happened, which is practically the same thing as "happening".

I don't see where you got that. That said, it's the NYT we're talking about here. There isn't much from them that surprises me at this point.

In fact, maybe it did happen and people broke into offices and changed records and information was suppressed and You Know What Those Liberals Are Capable Of.

addabox, this is Earth. Come in, addabox.

The great thing about it is it helps keep the indignation levels sky high. I doubt that many of the consumers of missives on liberal's latest crimes against humanity every really bother to go back and tally up the hits and misses, it's just all part of a circle-jerk of white-hot fury fueled by apocryphal tales of malfeasance.

Call it "The WMD Are In Syria" culture.. Or, you know, "The Batshit Crazy Paranoid Loon" style, if you prefer. Whichever.

It really depends on the person. I know some people like that....I also know many liberals who are going to vote for Hillary because they "like her husband." When asked what they like, they say "I like how he ran things." When asked what that means, the person says "I liked what he did with the economy." When asked what specific proposal he instituted to aid the economy, there are tow possible responses. If it's a dumb person, there are crickets chirping. If it's a slightly smarter person, he says "well, he balanced the budget"....which of course is really a different question that the one orginally asked. So it goes both ways.

trumptman

09-19-2007, 09:12 PM

And the answer is: the rate paid by MoveOn was the standard standby rate charged by the NYT, open to all comers who are willing to accept the limitations of standby status.

Continuing to pretend like there are larger issues that need hashing out is disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous. It is part of working within the framework of campaign finance reform. If you support limits on contributions that are set the same for all parties, doesn't it make sense that the rates charged to all parties by a particular outlet should be the same?

It is a simple question. Stop ducking it and just answer it.

Huh? The thread is about how the NYT supposedly gave MoveOn advantageous rates for an ad, so the only "front page" treatment is coming from Nick.

The fact that the original assertion- that there were advantageous rates-- is false, so the idea that this is an instance of looking the other way because it isn't about Republican meanies is meaningless. Not that something like that appears to ever be a detriment to having a nice big conversation about the nearly inhuman hypocrisy of liberals.

Actually the original point was that an FEC complaint had been filed and the basis for it, charging different than normal rates due to political orientation and that constituting a soft money donation, was a question I posed here to solicit opinions.

I've said I don't give a damn about the parties involved and I've not indicated that the Times, Moveon.org, or anyone else was bad. Someone asked about the ability of the FEC to regulate or investigate the speech of Moveon.org and I noted how it was a PAC. I didn't say it was an evil PAC or any other such nonsense. I didn't ask anyone to condemn the ad or declare it was bad of Moveon.org to run it, etc.

Come on man, pull your head out and stop viewing the word through blinders. There is a point outside of party to discuss here related to political power and speech.

Nick

trumptman

09-19-2007, 09:16 PM

None you seemed to have a problem with the Swift Boat Thugs and their "coordinated" efforts. I didn't see any of you examining how much they paid for their ads across the entire nation, let alone a single newspaper.

Last time I checked liberals and conservatives combined agreed it was their right as citizen's to spew their bile, regardless.

Kick rocks.

Actually a search will reveal that I did not like any 527 groups because they were not recognized as PACS in the that election and as such, were basically able to slosh around as much money as they desired, make donations to each other to obscure donation trails, and generally act as they wanted.

Nick

franksargent

09-19-2007, 10:13 PM

It's not disingenuous. It is part of working within the framework of campaign finance reform. If you support limits on contributions that are set the same for all parties, doesn't it make sense that the rates charged to all parties by a particular outlet should be the same?

It is a simple question. Stop ducking it and just answer it.

Actually the original point was that an FEC complaint had been filed and the basis for it, charging different than normal rates due to political orientation and that constituting a soft money donation, was a question I posed here to solicit opinions.

I've said I don't give a damn about the parties involved and I've not indicated that the Times, Moveon.org, or anyone else was bad. Someone asked about the ability of the FEC to regulate or investigate the speech of Moveon.org and I noted how it was a PAC. I didn't say it was an evil PAC or any other such nonsense. I didn't ask anyone to condemn the ad or declare it was bad of Moveon.org to run it, etc.

Come on man, pull your head out and stop viewing the word through blinders. There is a point outside of party to discuss here related to political power and speech.

Nick

It's been discussed, The NYT's standby rate applies equally to all parties willing to take the NYT's stated limitations wrt the standby rate.

Case effin CLOSED! :p

Flounder

09-19-2007, 10:28 PM

It's been discussed, The NYT's standby rate applies equally to all parties willing to take the NYT's stated limitations wrt the standby rate.

Case effin CLOSED! :p

Exactly. How can this even be debated by anyone any further?

They demonstrably received the same standard stand-by rate that everyone else does. It makes the whole premise of the thread null and void.

The process addabox was referring to is being carried out right in this very thread, inexplicably without a hint of irony.

Northgate

09-21-2007, 02:58 PM

Actually a search will reveal that I did not like any 527 groups because they were not recognized as PACS in the that election and as such, were basically able to slosh around as much money as they desired, make donations to each other to obscure donation trails, and generally act as they wanted.

Nick

Then you're a rare exception.

Northgate

09-21-2007, 03:02 PM

Did anyone see the president's hypocritical reply to a softball question lobbed by FoxNews about what he thought of the MoveOn ad?

This from the man who stood by and said absolutely nothing while Max Cleland's reputation as a soldier was destroyed by the infamous Osama ad.

This from the man who stood by and said absolutely nothing when the RNC ran the infamous "terrorist are gonna git ya'" ads during the last election.

This from the man who fully supported and agreed to the coordinated efforts between his campaign, the RNC, and extraordinarily funded Swift Boat Vets and their tar-and-feathering of an ex-decorated soldier who happened to be running for President.

This from the man who had absolutely no problems with everyone at the Republican Convention wearing fucking purple heart band-aids on their faces.

Assholes.

But hey. Move on put out an ad. In a newspaper. My GOD!

@_@ Artman

09-21-2007, 03:23 PM

The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed.

When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind.

When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition which he did when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864, nearly defeating our greatest president.

Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures, after four years of fearful servitude, rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him.

The list is not endless but it is instructive.

Air Force General LeMay—who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis and was retired.

Army General Edwin Anderson Walker—who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers.

Marine General Smedley Butler—who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy.

These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is not to be crossed!

Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man.

And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career.

The upshot is and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement he betrayed himself more than he did us.

But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune.

But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.

That is not only un-American but it is dictatorial.

And in pimping General David Petraeus and in the violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.

You did it again today and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed.

It is a line thankfully only the first of a series that makes the military political, and the political, military.

It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a Military Junta.

Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military.

"Your Hypocrisy Is So Vast (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63203/)"

Northgate

09-21-2007, 03:24 PM

Looks like Olbermann had the same thoughts and beat me to it. Damn. LOL!

@_@ Artman

09-21-2007, 06:58 PM

From here (http://www.americablog.com/2007/09/bush-raises-half-million-for-moveon.html):

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday, an amazing thing happened. After the Senate's shameful vote, and after President Bush called MoveOn "disgusting," our email started to fill up with messages like this one:

I'm currently in Iraq. I do not agree with this war, and if I did support this war, it would not matter. You have the RIGHT to speak the truth. We KNOW that you support us. Thank you for speaking out for being our voice. We do not have a voice. We are overshooted by those who say that we soldiers do not support organizations like MoveOn. WE DO.

YOU ARE OUR voice.

And then came the donations. By midnight, over 12,000 people had donated $500,000—more than we've raised any day this year—for our new ad calling out the Republicans who blocked adequate rest for troops headed back to Iraq.

The message from MoveOn members was loud and clear: Don't back down. Take the fight back to the issues that matter.

So today we're shooting for a very ambitious goal: Reach $1 million so we can dramatically expand the campaign we launched yesterday going after politicians who support this awful war. Can you chip in $25 toward our goal?

All day, messages from vets and military family members kept pouring into our email, many of them aimed at the Senate:

I have given a son to this country. My brother, my father, my uncle have all served honorably and bravely. I am a loyal American. I am outraged and sick to death of the tactics this administration uses to try to silence dissent to a war that is unjust, built and maintained on lies, political power, and greed. I was content to let others fight more loudly, but no more.
–Sharyn W., NC

I am a prior soldier who served in Iraq for 13 months, and am now an expecting mom with a husband who is deployed in Baghdad. I don't think I can ever forgive the Bush administration for the lies that tricked America into this war and hurt my family so badly. I am ashamed of those American politicians who would condemn an organization for practicing the Freedom of Speech that so many soldiers have died for.
–Danielle B., OH

As a US Navy veteran and an Iraq war veteran of over a year I want to ask, What has happened to us? What has happened to our voice? Where is this country going with stopping free speech and free press? ... Every time I think of the long nights I had in Anbar remembering what I was fighting for, well here it is....
–Ahmad H., LA

These folks have made sacrifices many of us can't imagine. Their charge to us was clear: keep speaking the truth about how President Bush and the Republicans have betrayed our trust.

So we're going to expand our ad campaign—keep it on the air longer and run it against other politicians who helped block adequate rest time for our troops. Can you chip in $25 to do it?

And still the messages kept coming ...

I've had three nephews serve since 2002, one of whom was killed in Anbar Province. I have a fourth nephew at Quantico training. I want this war over before he is deployed and before any more of our soldiers are sacrificed.
–Michele R., NE

Three members of my family are military. Two Marines have served in Iraq and an Army Lt. is deploying in November. If we had all spoken out when the administration used General Powell perhaps we would not be in this mess.
–Carol B., PA

As a Marine I served for many reasons but one of them was to allow people the freedom of speech, whether I agreed with it or not. Wearing a uniform does not mean someone isn't a shill, is spewing propaganda, and downright lies. MoveOn has every right to buy an ad and say what they want about a public figure. This administration has lied to us, deceived us, misled us and when posed with a challenge this is how they respond?
–Keith G., VA

The Senate won't pass a policy to end the war or even to make sure our troops in the field have enough rest time between deployments, but they hold votes to crack down on millions of Americans who are upset about the war?

Well—it isn't going to work. We put together a hard-hitting ad that highlights how Republicans failed our troops and if we can raise enough money today, we'll air it across the country. Please help if you can:

For all of us on the MoveOn staff, this week was a bit of a rollercoaster—MoveOn was attacked by nearly the entire Republican party, while too many Democrats ran for the hills. But what kept us going were messages like these—and the incredible privilege we feel to serve all 3.2 million Americans in MoveOn.org.

When the story is written of how the Iraq war ended, you will be the heroes. Thank you.

Jubelum

09-23-2007, 05:15 PM

It's been discussed, The NYT's standby rate applies equally to all parties willing to take the NYT's stated limitations wrt the standby rate.

Case effin CLOSED! :p

Case effin EXPOSED...

Betraying Its Own Best Interests (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/The%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin)

Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

NYT Apologists: Egg, meet face.

franksargent

09-23-2007, 05:51 PM

Case effin EXPOSED...

Betraying Its Own Best Interests (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/The%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin)

NYT Apologists: Egg, meet face.

Clark Hoyt is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears on Sundays at least twice monthly.

Clark Hoyt (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html)

Sorry, but it's still ...

case effin ...

CLOSED! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

TYVM!

Northgate

09-23-2007, 07:59 PM

I've never seen so many whiny ass titty babies get so upset over a PUN. And they say Democrats behave like a bunch of oversensitive pricks.

Too bad Congress had no balls to pass some more stupid resolutions denouncing John "Small Price" Boehner. Now there's something fucking offensive and disgusting.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 12:00 PM

Fellowship

09-24-2007, 12:22 PM

I've never seen so many whiny ass titty babies get so upset over a PUN. And they say Democrats behave like a bunch of oversensitive pricks.

To think that these neocon twits get to re-name things such as French Fries to"Freedom Fries" but how dare any evildoer libbbbberalllllssss suggest that a 4 star general might talk up a war effort and skip over some of the less than pretty facts.....

Fellows

NEOCONS have got to be some of the most brain dead robots I have ever seen in my life. God help this country.

Fellowship

09-24-2007, 12:27 PM

Regardless of the message and parties, there was clearly some sort of pricing favors being granted here.

Nick

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nick where the hell were you when no bid contracts were given to Halliburton?

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif

If it is all so unfair I would expect you to follow the bigger money deals... not pocket change BS.

How about the UK's BAE scam with the kingdom??? $40.4 billion

NEOCON crybabies are pathetic.

Fellows

@_@ Artman

09-24-2007, 12:58 PM

I know. Quibbling about a few thousand bucks and this administration "is spending 720 million dollars a day, more than 250 billion dollars a year on the Iraq war and at the same time the President threatens to veto an additional 5 billion a year for children's health insurance".

Am I dreaming? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-franken/nightmares_b_65575.html)

Northgate

09-24-2007, 01:02 PM

Northgate

09-24-2007, 01:03 PM

Twelve days in to this and they're STILL complaining about the price is ads.

Am I in some alternate universe or something?

addabox

09-24-2007, 01:04 PM

Betraying It's Own Interests (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/The%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin)

Moveon to pay full rate (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/moveon-to-pay-full-times-ad-rate/index.html?ex=1348200000&en=18f759edcb18275c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Is that crickets I hear from all those who were brushing this off using the standby rate defense?

Regardless of the message and parties, there was clearly some sort of pricing favors being granted here. It doesn't matter if afterwards, they were willing to commit a second wrong in an attempt to right the first wrong. It is still wrong.

Nick

The article cited merely suggests that the ad salesperson that quoted the standby rate to MoveOn didn't make it clear that standby meant the ad might not run, and left the impression that it definitely would.

It goes on to say that its normal for various groups to get ads at standby rates, and I would say the author's contention that this particular advocacy crossed some sort of invisible line with regards to civil discourse is just his opinion, and at any rate is always going to be a matter of interpretation.

The fact that MoveOn is agreeing to pay the difference between standby and standard rates is a clearly an effort to move the discussion back to the actual issue-- the prosecution of this war-- and off the tempest in a teapot that the right has whipped up in one of their standard change the subject echo chamber moves. Like this: MoveOn calls the times, gets quoted a rate, pays it. Huge bruhaha erupts, MoveOn shrugs, and pays the difference.

The Times' response, itself, seems like a typical cave to the right. One of the fun things about the "liberal media" meme is that it's a two-fer: when the media does something that is perfectly normal for our media to do-- eagerly pander to whoever appears to be able to make the most trouble for them, which is invariably the right-- wingers can claim it's doubly damning, since obviously when even "the liberal media" is forced to deviate from their socialist, America hating agenda, the case against them must be overwhelming.

It's all just theater and bullshit, of course. The war proceeds apace, it's still a clusterfuck and the people that support it are still lying assholes. The idea that the NYT is illegally subsidizing liberal propaganda is a typically inane right wing diversion.

Oh, and fuck the Congressional dems for being a party to this puppet show.

Northgate

09-24-2007, 01:20 PM

Hey, I wonder if The Club for Growth gets special rates on ads they place in the Weekly Standard? Maybe someone should investigate.

LOL!

addabox

09-24-2007, 01:29 PM

Hey, I wonder if The Club for Growth gets special rates on ads they place in the Weekly Standard? Maybe someone should investigate.

LOL!

Actually, I think it might be instructive to see what rates every advocacy group that has used the Times for the last, I dunno, ten years or so, have received.

Right? I mean, if we really are concerned about some kind of pattern of liberal subsidization, that would be very helpful, I would think.

Northgate

09-24-2007, 01:40 PM

Actually, I think it might be instructive to see what rates every advocacy group that has used the Times for the last, I dunno, ten years or so, have received.

Right? I mean, if we really are concerned about some kind of pattern of liberal subsidization, that would be very helpful, I would think.

I, for one, have absolutely no problem with this kind of transparency. It would be very interesting to see what types of rates have been paid by everyone.

I just think it's funny; this level of outrage over the NYT. The audacity of a newspaper in a liberal city and liberal state tilting... you know... to the left.

What's the newspaper of record for the state of Texas? I wonder if they tilt right. Or refuse to run ads from certain groups. Etc, etc.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 02:02 PM

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nick where the hell were you when no bid contracts were given to Halliburton?

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif

If it is all so unfair I would expect you to follow the bigger money deals... not pocket change BS.

How about the UK's BAE scam with the kingdom??? $40.4 billion

NEOCON crybabies are pathetic.

Fellows

OMG...

Here's the DOW...

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji

and here's the NASDAQ

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_ixic

I mean the NASDAQ more than doubled during that time and the DOW only went up by around 40%.

It is a C-O-N-spiracy I tell you!!! People have made money and that means that Bush is bad and the United States and especially Republicans are all evil.

Here's a hint Fellowship, charts that start at zero and are tracking something almost always have to go up. Is it possible for a chart of deaths in Iraq for example to go in any other direction than up?

Shhhh, Fellows. You're bringing up inconvenient arguments. Unfair. :lol::lol:

No.. he is bringing up irrelevant arguments.

I could show you a chart with the number of Moveon.org donations since the war started and it would have an upward tragetory since 1998 and especially since 2003. Does that mean they have profited from the war?

Twelve days in to this and they're STILL complaining about the price is ads.

Am I in some alternate universe or something?

Says the man who has an unconfirmed quote from 2005 in his sig?!? Alternate universe indeed, I think you just busted the irony meter.

The article cited merely suggests that the ad salesperson that quoted the standby rate to MoveOn didn't make it clear that standby meant the ad might not run, and left the impression that it definitely would.

It goes on to say that its normal for various groups to get ads at standby rates, and I would say the author's contention that this particular advocacy crossed some sort of invisible line with regards to civil discourse is just his opinion, and at any rate is always going to be a matter of interpretation.

The fact that MoveOn is agreeing to pay the difference between standby and standard rates is a clearly an effort to move the discussion back to the actual issue-- the prosecution of this war-- and off the tempest in a teapot that the right has whipped up in one of their standard change the subject echo chamber moves. Like this: MoveOn calls the times, gets quoted a rate, pays it. Huge bruhaha erupts, MoveOn shrugs, and pays the difference.

The Times' response, itself, seems like a typical cave to the right. One of the fun things about the "liberal media" meme is that it's a two-fer: when the media does something that is perfectly normal for our media to do-- eagerly pander to whoever appears to be able to make the most trouble for them, which is invariably the right-- wingers can claim it's doubly damning, since obviously when even "the liberal media" is forced to deviate from their socialist, America hating agenda, the case against them must be overwhelming.

It's all just theater and bullshit, of course. The war proceeds apace, it's still a clusterfuck and the people that support it are still lying assholes. The idea that the NYT is illegally subsidizing liberal propaganda is a typically inane right wing diversion.

Oh, and fuck the Congressional dems for being a party to this puppet show.

Clearly the reason Times was chastised by its own editor, claims an actual mistake was made, and also why Moveon.org has wired the additional money, is because regardless of your spin, it is more than just an omission. A complaint has been filed, the FEC will investigate, and people are quickly trying to cover their own asses after having been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It isn't as you suggest, some shoulder shrug.

Don't worry the trail of dirty money and lies is fully justified when it is on the Democratic side. Got some 527s funded by a currency trading billionaire who launder donations and money to each other and then get preferred rates from their corporate allies, well that is well intentioned and acceptable because it is for the right CAUSE. Wrong becomes right if you just accept the dogma.

Nick

Jubelum

09-24-2007, 02:40 PM

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif

Um, not to point out the obvious... but those graphs are a *bit* misleading in their assemblage. It's a rather silly attempt to show causality or some awe-inspiring relationship among these factors. Such a posting is beneath your usual quality, Fellows.

Income rises. Profits rise. No surprise there. There is an accumulation of casualties over time... the middle graph can never go down. It's a silly attempt to tie a floating number (profits and revenue) directly to a linear accumulation, that being the casualty count. Someone who is looking for intellectually lazy viewers is making the shockingly spurious argument that Halliburton profits increase based on casualties. I mean, what do we really expect from a group called "halliburtonwatch.org"

Kudos to whoever put that together... I hope their HS teacher gave them an A. As far as its purposes here, we can certainly do better.

trumptman

09-24-2007, 02:56 PM

Jubelum

09-24-2007, 03:46 PM

I, for one, have absolutely no problem with this kind of transparency. It would be very interesting to see what types of rates have been paid by everyone.

I just think it's funny; this level of outrage over the NYT. The audacity of a newspaper in a liberal city and liberal state tilting... you know... to the left.

What's the newspaper of record for the state of Texas? I wonder if they tilt right. Or refuse to run ads from certain groups. Etc, etc.

Well, you admitted that the NYT tilts left. That's progress.

I'll tell you without equivocation that the Austin American Statesman and the Houston Chronicle both tilt left. I've had more than one run-in with a pair of reporters from the Chronicle about their integrity in reporting about Texas gun owners. The Statesman is there to serve their very blue county, and they report as expected. The Dallas Morning News and SA Express News, to round out the group, are parts of national conglomerates and have more than their share of leftists in the editorial pages.

addabox

09-24-2007, 04:03 PM

OMG...

Clearly the reason Times was chastised by its own editor, claims an actual mistake was made, and also why Moveon.org has wired the additional money, is because regardless of your spin, it is more than just an omission. A complaint has been filed, the FEC will investigate, and people are quickly trying to cover their own asses after having been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It isn't as you suggest, some shoulder shrug.

That's not remotely "clearly the reason", it just fits your preexisting narrative of evil teh Liberal Media. The only ass covering is the Times folding to the usual right wing manufactured uproar, as usual.

Anyone at all can "file a complaint" with the FEC, and they will indeed investigate. Really, not much more than an ACU publicity stunt, and I'm sure you'll have forgotten all about it by the time the FEC summarily dismisses the complaint.

Don't worry the trail of dirty money and lies is fully justified when it is on the Democratic side. Got some 527s funded by a currency trading billionaire who launder donations and money to each other and then get preferred rates from their corporate allies, well that is well intentioned and acceptable because it is for the right CAUSE. Wrong becomes right if you just accept the dogma.

Nick

See, when you start a thread claiming that you have no particular ax to grind, just a healthy citizen interest in campaign financing, then pretty quickly spin out into a wildly disparate, unsubstantiated theory about liberal conspiracies, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

Why not just start the thread that's clearly on your mind, about the horrible machinations of scum-sucking libs, instead of yet again playing at the dispassionate observer that will see us hoisted on our own petards? At this points it's just...... I dunno, irritating.

Jubelum

09-24-2007, 04:10 PM

addabox

09-24-2007, 04:33 PM

Is it just me or what this thread over when the NYT staff member admitted that MoveOn got a rate that was overly generous?
Nick raised a question here that had been brought to the FEC. After it all comes out in the wash... there is a photo of hand exiting cookie jar.

I think what appeared in their own paper was substantiation enough, TYVM.

Ah, what the hell, let's shoot the messenger anyway. :)

No, actually, Nick was using this as an example of somewhat dubious if not outright illegal soft money donations.

What the Times article says is that an ad salesman quoted the standby rate without being explicit about what that entailed. We also (still) know that the Times really does have a standby rate, and that it gets used all the time (as in the case of the subsequent Giuliani ad).

So somebody's going to have to show that there is some kind of pattern, on the part of the Times, for there to be any there there.

Focusing on this, and coming away with, "There you go, liberal media in cahoots with liberal advocacy group" is merely dishonest.

Unless you're OK with formulations like "CBS pulled that Reagan mini-series under pressure from the right, therefore CBS is clearly the puppet of the right."

trumptman

09-24-2007, 05:31 PM

That's not remotely "clearly the reason", it just fits your preexisting narrative of evil teh Liberal Media. The only ass covering is the Times folding to the usual right wing manufactured uproar, as usual.

It doesn't just fit a narrative, these are facts.

Anyone at all can "file a complaint" with the FEC, and they will indeed investigate. Really, not much more than an ACU publicity stunt, and I'm sure you'll have forgotten all about it by the time the FEC summarily dismisses the complaint.

You are right that the FEC can dismiss the complaint. However considering that Moveon.org has already paid at least $150k in fines, I don't give them the benefit of the doubt here. I go with the prior pattern.

See, when you start a thread claiming that you have no particular ax to grind, just a healthy citizen interest in campaign financing, then pretty quickly spin out into a wildly disparate, unsubstantiated theory about liberal conspiracies, it makes it hard to take you seriously.

It's not my theory. I'm noting that if this had come from the right with the same cast of characters, you guys would be going ape-shit instead of shrugging your shoulders.

Also my theory isn't unsubstanciated (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Aug29/0,4670,PoliticalGroupFine,00.html) unless your truthiness detector can't read about the fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars while noting $70 million raised from Soros and company.

Oh damn, it is just that "preexisting narrative" that just happened to fit the facts and have fines levied.

Why not just start the thread that's clearly on your mind, about the horrible machinations of scum-sucking libs, instead of yet again playing at the dispassionate observer that will see us hoisted on our own petards? At this points it's just...... I dunno, irritating.

Your reply claimed there were no larger issues to hash out. You called claims of anything existing beyond the Times ad rate as being disingenuous. Now I show you the larger issues, even present them in a way where you clearly should consider it wrong, and now I am full of crap because, well now the large issue is liberals must suck.... even though you claimed there was no larger issues, etc.

So basically there is no way to win with you.

No, actually, Nick was using this as an example of somewhat dubious if not outright illegal soft money donations.

Oh come now, there can't be any larger issues like that in this thread.

What the Times article says is that an ad salesman quoted the standby rate without being explicit about what that entailed. We also (still) know that the Times really does have a standby rate, and that it gets used all the time (as in the case of the subsequent Giuliani ad).

So somebody's going to have to show that there is some kind of pattern, on the part of the Times, for there to be any there there.

Sounds a bit like moving the goal posts to me. We have the editor of the newspaper claiming there was a mistake. We have the folks in the ad department being admonished to insure consistency with regard to ad rates. Another group had asked for similar treatment did not get it. Moveon.org admitted they never questioned the rate because they had been quoted it in the past and were not told it was standby or anything of that nature.

You seem to have a scenario where people, trapped by their own words are admitting there is a pattern.

That said, how about the premise of the thread, should rates for political speech be standardized much like how contributions are standardized. If one group is charged a disproportionate rate, does it become a form of soft money contribution to that cause? You and North, when taking off the blinders and not accusing everyone of being party cronies indicate that there should be transparency in this area. That is all this whole thread is about. Can you really regulate the donations, but not look into the expenditures.

Nick

Fellowship

09-24-2007, 11:15 PM

Such a posting is beneath your usual quality, Fellows.

Income rises. Profits rise. No surprise there.
Kudos to whoever put that together... I hope their HS teacher gave them an A. As far as its purposes here, we can certainly do better.

I think it need not be required for information to be "stuffy" and overly complicated to communicate simple data.

All I did was link to 3 charts which all display data. Take from them what you want but to dismiss the data because you suppose that the charts are not in the position to be grouped together is a bit too simple as well if you ask me.

Just look at the data reflected by these charts.

I look at charts several hours a day and I fail to see any confusion given by the three different charts and the data they display.

I think each of the three charts speak for themselves.

Fellows

Jubelum

09-24-2007, 11:26 PM

All I did was link to 3 charts which all display data. Take from them what you want but to dismiss the data because you suppose that the charts are not in the position to be grouped together is a bit too simple as well if you ask me.

You're smarter than that. No fooling me, Fellows. ;)

I did not dismiss the data... I simply pointed out that US casualties and Halliburton profits are not based on any causal relationship.

Northgate

09-25-2007, 04:27 PM

Hey, looks like The Washington Post (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/pentagon-and-petraeus-casualty-data-differ-significantly/) says that Petraeus lied.

Good thing they didn't buy an ad. Otherwise we might have to pass some more congressional ammendments to denounce them.

Northgate

09-25-2007, 04:40 PM

I love this quote:

"I'm a little worried about upcoming fights over funding for Iraq, inasmuch as they might distract us from discussing the Moveon ad."

@_@ Artman

09-25-2007, 04:42 PM

Clinton Has Staff Kill Negative GQ Article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/25/clinton-has-staff-kill-ne_n_65746.html)

FEC complaint alleges Rudy got 'soft money' from NYT (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/FEC_complaint_alleges_Rudy_got_soft_0925.html)

Why waste time arguing over any of this? Plain and simple, politics is a business. An unethical one too.

franksargent

09-25-2007, 07:56 PM

Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003).

jimmac

09-25-2007, 08:02 PM

conservative.org?:no::lol:

Geez!:no::lol:

Fellowship

09-25-2007, 11:02 PM

Ohhhhhh Nick,,,

You think the NYT is biased...

Check this out..

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/censorship_myspace_censors_anti_war_websites.htm

Nothing like good old censorship.

I would expect no less from the owner of Fox News.

Fellows

trumptman

09-26-2007, 02:13 PM

George Will (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/sauce_for_the_times.html) basically destroys the NY Times with their own past actions and words. Even their "mistakes" are so contrary to the very notions they condemned in the past, that no amount of spin can hide their true motives.

Nick

franksargent

09-26-2007, 02:33 PM

edited by rageous:

Grow up. If you're going to violate the rules, don't be so absurdly blatant about it.

Northgate

09-27-2007, 12:37 PM

Sometimes Bill Maher says it so succinctly I couldn't agree more...

"The Senate actually voted to condemn an ad. That’s what your government did yesterday---they had a vote to pass a resolution to condemn an ad with a pun in it. And then they had Oreos and braided each other’s hair.

And twenty two Democrats voted for that, by the way.

The Democrats are so useless they could not even pass a bill to get our troops more time between deployments. Only Republicans could make an argument that a bill that literally supports the troops didn’t support the troops, and only the Democrats could lose that argument.

Next week the Democrats are going to vote whether to give Republicans all their lunch money or just some of it."

dfiler

09-27-2007, 01:28 PM

This thread needn't have involved any discussion of liberal vs conservative or republican vs democrat. Once that kind of mud-slinging was unleashed, it lost all hope of addressing the issue at hand.

So far, I understand the facts as follows: MoveOn payed the standard standby ad rate. MoveOn was misquoted what services they bought for that price. The ad ran as paid for.

There very well could be something shady going on but I've yet to see evidence of it.

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 01:20 AM

Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us," there was Limbaugh's "Senator Betrayus" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003).

Please tell us who the "us" is in Limbaugh's "betray-us" and do it in context. If you can.

tonton

10-01-2007, 04:46 AM

Please tell us who the "us" is in Limbaugh's "betray-us" and do it in context. If you can.

He's obviously referring to the Republican Party. So. Are you saying party politics is a good thing then?

Jubelum

10-01-2007, 12:23 PM

He's obviously referring to the Republican Party. So. Are you saying party politics is a good thing then?

Just asking because the left wing spin machine is spinning "Sen. Betrayus" as Limbaugh calling the senator a traitor to the US, not the party. But hey, what do we really expect from MediaMatters and Soros. The senator betrayed the conservative cause in Limbaugh's opinion. A *tad* different from calling a decorated general a traitor to the United States.

Party politics? Jeeez... you and screener must be drinking the same kool-aid. How in the hell do you get to my support (or lack thereof) of party politics from my post? You're grasping for something here... in vain. 8-)

addabox

10-01-2007, 01:30 PM

Just asking because the left wing spin machine is spinning "Sen. Betrayus" as Limbaugh calling the senator a traitor to the US, not the party. But hey, what do we really expect from MediaMatters and Soros. The senator betrayed the conservative cause in Limbaugh's opinion. A *tad* different from calling a decorated general a traitor to the United States.

Party politics? Jeeez... you and screener must be drinking the same kool-aid. How in the hell do you get to my support (or lack thereof) of party politics from my post? You're grasping for something here... in vain. 8-)

Well, there's your casual conflation of Soros and Media Matters, which are not related (although O'Reilly is convinced that's where they receive their funding, in proper eeeevaaaal liberal conspiracy manner-- maybe that's where you're getting your non-partisan talking points?).

Then there's the somewhat tortuous explanation of Limbaugh's remarks, which I cannot find any real evidence to support in the transcript- you just sorta have to have faith.

If you claim to above the fray but somehow always manage to save most of your (frequently contrived) darts for one party, you can't be surprised when you're taken for a partisan.