Moveon.org Condemned by House

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Magnate wrote:
At minimum, George Soros and his minions should get hit for slander.

That’s more reasonable, I don’t see a problem if the General takes them to court in a civil suit for that ad.[/quote]

I agree and would like to see the General pursue this route. However, for the Congress to spend time officially condeming this ad, is, IMHO, a misuse of their important time. This kind of shit is why Congress has such a low aproval rating.

Let’s get some real fucking work done on both sides of the aisle.

22

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
George Soros is a total bastard in my opinion, but if you feel that he should be put on treason for funding moveon, you need to remove the veil.

Every time they open their mouths someone from the GOP or someone who cares about a victory of the century at a high cost gets ten votes.

Not that high GOP support is ALWAYS a good thing but you see my point here. Should we put the folks at loose change on trial for treason? Or maybe Michael Moore? Not at all. Mainly since the above rule applies to them as well.

If it were 1944 and someone took out an ad calling Eisenhauer or Patton a cowardly traitor, what would have happened?

IMHO, freedom of speech does NOT extend to helping our enemies perceive that they have support for their cause in our country. I can’t believe that our Constitution would guarantee such rights. Does it? I’m no Constitutional scholar or anything like that, but they might want to rewrite the thing if so(and make taxation in any way unconstitutional, while they’re at it).

[/quote]

Because Patton and Eisenhower always played spokesperson for the government. I wonder what would have happened if people called, say Kennedy or LBJ a coward or traitor… wait…

If I want to stand up and declare that our government sucks balls and General Petreaus is a jackass suck up whose job depended on saying Bush was doing a good job I am well within my rights to do so. Being in the military should NEVER make one above criticism. In fact, it should illicit much MORE scrutiny than if one DIDN’T have the lives of our young ones in their hands.

You do realize the framers developed the constitution with the idea that the military would be subservient to civilians right? They were pretty PO’d at the way GB had used the military as a bully in their backyard.

23

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I agree and would like to see the General pursue this route. However, for the Congress to spend time officially condeming this ad, is, IMHO, a misuse of their important time. This kind of shit is why Congress has such a low aproval rating.

Let’s get some real fucking work done on both sides of the aisle.
[/quote]

Congress? Whoever spoke about Congress?

24

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
George Soros is a total bastard in my opinion, but if you feel that he should be put on treason for funding moveon, you need to remove the veil.

Every time they open their mouths someone from the GOP or someone who cares about a victory of the century at a high cost gets ten votes.

Not that high GOP support is ALWAYS a good thing but you see my point here. Should we put the folks at loose change on trial for treason? Or maybe Michael Moore? Not at all. Mainly since the above rule applies to them as well.

If it were 1944 and someone took out an ad calling Eisenhauer or Patton a cowardly traitor, what would have happened?

IMHO, freedom of speech does NOT extend to helping our enemies perceive that they have support for their cause in our country. I can’t believe that our Constitution would guarantee such rights. Does it? I’m no Constitutional scholar or anything like that, but they might want to rewrite the thing if so(and make taxation in any way unconstitutional, while they’re at it).

Because Patton and Eisenhower always played spokesperson for the government. I wonder what would have happened if people called, say Kennedy or LBJ a coward or traitor… wait…

If I want to stand up and declare that our government sucks balls and General Petreaus is a jackass suck up whose job depended on saying Bush was doing a good job I am well within my rights to do so. Being in the military should NEVER make one above criticism. In fact, it should illicit much MORE scrutiny than if one DIDN’T have the lives of our young ones in their hands.

You do realize the framers developed the constitution with the idea that the military would be subservient to civilians right? They were pretty PO’d at the way GB had used the military as a bully in their backyard.

[/quote]

I realize that we each have the right to say what we wish and that government cannot be used as an instrument to silence us. But…this freedom has limits. You can’t call 911 and announce that a guy with a gun is roaming the hallways of your local school unless one actually is. You can’t call the cops on your neighbor and accuse him of being a pedophile w/o justification. You can’t stand up at a neighborhood party and call one of your neighbors a rapist.

In a similar fashion, you can’t accuse a fellow citizen of being a traitor, of ‘betraying us’ unless you can substantiate that claim. Did Moveon do that? Were they able to prove their accusations true? Such accusations are slanderous and we have laws about that.

Being that the General is a very public figure, involved in a war, such an act emboldens our enemy — just like assholes announcing that the war is lost. Traitors, one and all.

I personally think Soros should be barred from entering our country.

25

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I realize that we each have the right to say what we wish and that government cannot be used as an instrument to silence us. But…this freedom has limits. You can’t call 911 and announce that a guy with a gun is roaming the hallways of your local school unless one actually is. You can’t call the cops on your neighbor and accuse him of being a pedophile w/o justification. You can’t stand up at a neighborhood party and call one of your neighbors a rapist.[/quote]

I must have missed the part where moveon called the cops on Patreaus.

They in essence called him a shill and said he gave a dishonest report. And already agreed with you regarding slander, but that is an issue for Patreaus to handle if he so chooses and not the rest of us.

[quote]Being that the General is a very public figure, involved in a war, such an act emboldens our enemy — just like assholes announcing that the war is lost. Traitors, one and all.
[/quote]

Because you say so, right? I mean surely you have some way of proving that someone speaking out against the war emboldened AT LEAST one guy. Say it all you want, most people tune out the “embolden our enemy” rhetoric at this point.

26

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
In a similar fashion, you can’t accuse a fellow citizen of being a traitor, of ‘betraying us’ unless you can substantiate that claim. Did Moveon do that?[/quote]

No, they just asked a question. “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” See? Question. Fox does it all the time and no one gets upset. Maybe you’re just angry at the answer you give to the question.

Great. Why isn’t anyone suing them?

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Has traitor been redefined to mean “realist?” Cause the war, such as it is, has been lost for quite some while. Iraq is going nowhere politically. The tenuous pretense of a government you’d manage to prop up for a few years is unraveling by the day. Not good.

I’m sure a lot of people here think your should be barred from even approaching a school, but isn’t freedom great?

27

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
George Soros is a total bastard in my opinion, but if you feel that he should be put on treason for funding moveon, you need to remove the veil.

Every time they open their mouths someone from the GOP or someone who cares about a victory of the century at a high cost gets ten votes.

Not that high GOP support is ALWAYS a good thing but you see my point here. Should we put the folks at loose change on trial for treason? Or maybe Michael Moore? Not at all. Mainly since the above rule applies to them as well.

If it were 1944 and someone took out an ad calling Eisenhauer or Patton a cowardly traitor, what would have happened?

IMHO, freedom of speech does NOT extend to helping our enemies perceive that they have support for their cause in our country. I can’t believe that our Constitution would guarantee such rights. Does it? I’m no Constitutional scholar or anything like that, but they might want to rewrite the thing if so(and make taxation in any way unconstitutional, while they’re at it).

Because Patton and Eisenhower always played spokesperson for the government. I wonder what would have happened if people called, say Kennedy or LBJ a coward or traitor… wait…

If I want to stand up and declare that our government sucks balls and General Petreaus is a jackass suck up whose job depended on saying Bush was doing a good job I am well within my rights to do so. Being in the military should NEVER make one above criticism. In fact, it should illicit much MORE scrutiny than if one DIDN’T have the lives of our young ones in their hands.

You do realize the framers developed the constitution with the idea that the military would be subservient to civilians right? They were pretty PO’d at the way GB had used the military as a bully in their backyard.

I realize that we each have the right to say what we wish and that government cannot be used as an instrument to silence us. But…this freedom has limits. You can’t call 911 and announce that a guy with a gun is roaming the hallways of your local school unless one actually is. You can’t call the cops on your neighbor and accuse him of being a pedophile w/o justification. You can’t stand up at a neighborhood party and call one of your neighbors a rapist.

In a similar fashion, you can’t accuse a fellow citizen of being a traitor, of ‘betraying us’ unless you can substantiate that claim. Did Moveon do that? Were they able to prove their accusations true? Such accusations are slanderous and we have laws about that.

Being that the General is a very public figure, involved in a war, such an act emboldens our enemy — just like assholes announcing that the war is lost. Traitors, one and all.

I personally think Soros should be barred from entering our country.

[/quote]

Swift Boat. Why aren’t they on trial?

It’s an interpretation. A 527. Perfectly legal.

I can make a commercial stating George Bush hates poor children, and wants them dead, if that is my interpretation of his plan to veto the upcoming child welfare bill [this is just an example, not my actual thoughts on the veto].

How the hell does declaring a war lost embolden our enemies? If they wanted to invade us, I could see that being true, but saying Iraq is lost or not is hardly going to effect the insurgents who truly believe they are fighting for their home. I though you said Muslims were all fanatics HH? Fanatics surely wouldn’t be effected by any kind of news from their enemy, positive or negative, they’d just keep fighting as hard regardless.

28

[quote]pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?
[/quote]

Beat me to it.

29

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Beat me to it.[/quote]

The only problem with that comparison is that Limbaugh has zero credibility. He’s a lousy radio comedian who no one takes seriously, unlike MoveOn.

30

[quote]pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Beat me to it.

The only problem with that comparison is that Limbaugh has zero credibility. He’s a lousy radio comedian who no one takes seriously, unlike MoveOn.
[/quote]

MoveOn has credibility now?

To me, MoveOn has Zero cred. Limbaugh just happens to be in the very, very high negatives.

31

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Magnate wrote:
At minimum, George Soros and his minions should get hit for slander.

That’s more reasonable, I don’t see a problem if the General takes them to court in a civil suit for that ad.

I agree and would like to see the General pursue this route. However, for the Congress to spend time officially condeming this ad, is, IMHO, a misuse of their important time. This kind of shit is why Congress has such a low aproval rating.

Let’s get some real fucking work done on both sides of the aisle.

[/quote]

Again the low approval rate is for not ending the war. So not something you really wanna keep mentioning.

Also republicans don’t work in congress (remember?)

32

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
George Soros is a total bastard in my opinion, but if you feel that he should be put on treason for funding moveon, you need to remove the veil.

Every time they open their mouths someone from the GOP or someone who cares about a victory of the century at a high cost gets ten votes.

Not that high GOP support is ALWAYS a good thing but you see my point here. Should we put the folks at loose change on trial for treason? Or maybe Michael Moore? Not at all. Mainly since the above rule applies to them as well.

If it were 1944 and someone took out an ad calling Eisenhauer or Patton a cowardly traitor, what would have happened?

IMHO, freedom of speech does NOT extend to helping our enemies perceive that they have support for their cause in our country. I can’t believe that our Constitution would guarantee such rights. Does it? I’m no Constitutional scholar or anything like that, but they might want to rewrite the thing if so(and make taxation in any way unconstitutional, while they’re at it).

Because Patton and Eisenhower always played spokesperson for the government. I wonder what would have happened if people called, say Kennedy or LBJ a coward or traitor… wait…

If I want to stand up and declare that our government sucks balls and General Petreaus is a jackass suck up whose job depended on saying Bush was doing a good job I am well within my rights to do so. Being in the military should NEVER make one above criticism. In fact, it should illicit much MORE scrutiny than if one DIDN’T have the lives of our young ones in their hands.

You do realize the framers developed the constitution with the idea that the military would be subservient to civilians right? They were pretty PO’d at the way GB had used the military as a bully in their backyard.

I realize that we each have the right to say what we wish and that government cannot be used as an instrument to silence us. But…this freedom has limits. You can’t call 911 and announce that a guy with a gun is roaming the hallways of your local school unless one actually is. You can’t call the cops on your neighbor and accuse him of being a pedophile w/o justification. You can’t stand up at a neighborhood party and call one of your neighbors a rapist.

In a similar fashion, you can’t accuse a fellow citizen of being a traitor, of ‘betraying us’ unless you can substantiate that claim. Did Moveon do that? Were they able to prove their accusations true? Such accusations are slanderous and we have laws about that.

Being that the General is a very public figure, involved in a war, such an act emboldens our enemy — just like assholes announcing that the war is lost. Traitors, one and all.

I personally think Soros should be barred from entering our country.

[/quote]
the add says “or Betray us” referring to being less than honest with us which I think was substantiated. You’ll remember he had previously made overly rosy predictions in the past…it’s not like this is coming from nowhere.

Of course if this is slander then swift boat vets, rush limbaugh all should be hung from rafters—let alone hilldog’s “body count”, mcain’s black baby and on and on and on…

33

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
MoveOn has credibility now?

To me, MoveOn has Zero cred. Limbaugh just happens to be in the very, very high negatives.[/quote]

It has enough credibility for the senate to waste a day debating it and then voting on a motion.

Rush can only dream of one day having that kind of impact.

34

[quote]100meters wrote:
…

Again the low approval rate is for not ending the war. So not something you really wanna keep mentioning.

Also republicans don’t work in congress (remember?)

[/quote]

The low approval by Democrat survey participants is for not ending the war in Iraq. This doesn’t generalize to the reasons for disapproval by independents and Republicans.

35

[quote]
pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Beowolf wrote:
Beat me to it.[/quote]

Perhaps because there’s not anything to the Rush claim:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhNzdlNmVlMjQ0ZDY1ZTAxOWU0NmM4YWQzMTQyNzQ=

The House shouldn’t worry itself about what MoveOn.org is doing with its ridiculous ad.

36

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Magnate wrote:
At minimum, George Soros and his minions should get hit for slander.

That’s more reasonable, I don’t see a problem if the General takes them to court in a civil suit for that ad.

I agree and would like to see the General pursue this route. However, for the Congress to spend time officially condeming this ad, is, IMHO, a misuse of their important time. This kind of shit is why Congress has such a low aproval rating.

Let’s get some real fucking work done on both sides of the aisle.

Again the low approval rate is for not ending the war. So not something you really wanna keep mentioning.

Also republicans don’t work in congress (remember?)

[/quote]

You’re such a leftist cheerleader that it makes me want to vomit. In your eyes, the dems do no wrong, shit golden truffles, and have the right answer for everything. You’re a joke. I believe that Professor X used to refer to this as a “football mentality”. Your team vs my team kind of BS.

You want to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the low approval rating for Congress is due to the single issue of Iraq then that’s fine. It’s your own little fucked up world. I realize that this is your attempt at spinning the poor ratings in the direction of the GOP. That’s just how you roll; dems=good, GOP=baaaaad.

But the sad reality is that the dems aren’t doing such a hot job right now and are failing to deliver on the overpromising they did to get elected. They have their own scandals cropping up and are unable, and apparently unwilling to “drain the swamp” of corruption in washington, as pelosi said.

You consistently reaffirm yourself as a political hack and a joke on this forum. Keep up the good work bro.

37

[quote]100meters wrote:
the add says “or Betray us” referring to being less than honest with us which I think was substantiated. You’ll remember he had previously made overly rosy predictions in the past…it’s not like this is coming from nowhere. [/quote]

Exactly. If the case went to court, it’d be quite an interesting thing to follow.

38

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

How the hell does declaring a war lost embolden our enemies? [/quote]

Snap back to reality…(Eminem)

39

[quote]pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Beat me to it.

The only problem with that comparison is that Limbaugh has zero credibility. He’s a lousy radio comedian who no one takes seriously, unlike MoveOn.
[/quote]

Did Limbaugh name names? Did he point someone out specifically? Did he take someone’s name and try to turn it into an insult, all for political gain?

I have no issue with Moveon ripping into the general’s REPORT. If its phony or deceptive, rip it apart.

What’s the name for it when someone CAN’T attack the argument so they attack THE PERSON instead? Hmmm…what is that?

40

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pookie wrote:

By the way, Rush Limbaugh just said that soldiers who oppose the war and think the troops should come home are “phony soldiers.” Where’s your outrage at having Heroes™ disparaged thus?

Beat me to it.

The only problem with that comparison is that Limbaugh has zero credibility. He’s a lousy radio comedian who no one takes seriously, unlike MoveOn.

Did Limbaugh name names? Did he point someone out specifically? Did he take someone’s name and try to turn it into an insult, all for political gain?

I have no issue with Moveon ripping into the general’s REPORT. If its phony or deceptive, rip it apart.

What’s the name for it when someone CAN’T attack the argument so they attack THE PERSON instead? Hmmm…what is that?

[/quote]

Republican.

and obviously what Rush did is worse, collectively labeling soldiers that disagree “phony”. (attack them, because he can’t attack argument}