Was Move on.org ad a facist statement?

Question

even when they are not true.

Answer 1

There is no one more pathologically opposed to free speech and the rule of law than a "Liberal".

That's why they are so hysterically opposed to "talk radio" because the overwhelming majority of callers are plain folk who are smart enough to see the insanity of the Liberals' politics.

And Liberals are opposed to the "rule of law" because it means they won't have the chance to enlarge their political base through canvassing illegal immigrants, who are, by simple definition, already criminals once they cross the border. That's aiding and abetting in ANY court of law.

Any Liberal is actionably guilty of aiding and abetting criminal behavior as well as treason during wartime.

And they're willing to let thousands of American troops die to protect the Liberals' constitutional right to free speech . . . which they wouldn't have in the countries they support . . . "Palestine", Syria, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

I don't actually see any sort of mass migration of Liberals to support the countries they say are the victims of American foreign policies.

If George Soros wasn't pumping millions of dollars into that website to keep it afloat, it would just fade away like the so-called Liberal "Air America" talk radio fiasco.

And it's ironic that they chose "Air America" as their station name since that was also the name of the undercover C.I.A. airline that channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to illegal funding and arming of South American puppet governments and terrorist groups from the ' 60s - '90s that slaughtered thousands of innocent indiginous peasants.

BTW: Did anyone notice that "sagacious_ness" 's list of the fourteen characteristics of fascism detail to the last comma and period EVERY Islamic majority country?


//http://islam-the-monster-unchained.blogspot.com

Answer 2

You replied it on your individual question... "*IF* you are able to protest publically, criticize the government and in general exhibit disapproval for cutting-edge rules and not get hauled away in a black van, does not this mean that the U. S. isn't a facist u . s . a .?" look up the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill actually facilitates the U. S. government the liberty to objective political activists and voters destructive to habit via the government, and to label them as terrorists. It makes it possible for government censorship of sites that do the comparable. you will locate a variety of of criminal experts who element out the holes and unfastened definitions in this piece of law and diverse who're prepared to cutting-edge some very conceivable scenerio's that should take place with it. And, of direction, it does not end here. there are a variety of of expenses and "Acts" presented interior the final numerous years that have the aptitude to shrink civil liberties on an identical time as bestowing greater skill to government. what's a "unfastened speech zone" and why can we've those? We won't be Facist yet we are heading there.

Answer 3

In a word... NO!
First, take a look at 14 points of Fascism:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
And how they apply to the current administration:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Second, take a good look at the ad. Here's a link to it which includes links used as basis for ad text:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

Third, take a look at the testimony that Patraeus has given and compare it to the GAO Report. Since the NYT ad mentioned "cooking the books", look at the numbers. For example, US sources say 165 died in Baghdad; Iraqi Int. Ministry says 428 (from morgue and hospital records). It's easier to claim a significant reduction in violence when you don't count sectarian violence or car bombings. This might help for starters:
-- GAO Report (non-partisan):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf
-- Testimony, recent reports not always on same page:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/11/testimony_recent_reports_not_always_on_same_page/
-- A different perspective on civil war in Anbar:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1424208

While pondering those numbers, also consider Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was arrested after he shouted out a request that Petraeus and Crocker be sworn in before testifying. The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker were NOT under oath. Why not? Since Bush has drawn parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report (verb) on the status of the Vietnam War, and he did so under oath:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091007a.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1423249

And if you really want to open your mind, here's an article from an non-embedded journalist in Iraq reporting about who's taking over the government there:
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000634.php#more

Answer 4

The AD was a brilliant strategy.

They used it to not only defame the American military, they have identified more of their support base and consolidated them.

They have made a clear statement that they have unlimited funds and don't need the Republicans nor the Democrats and can do or say whatever they want no matter how outrageous.

They are the Howard Stern/Imus shock-jocks of politics and as long as they can afford full page ads, they will have the left wing media machine to do their bidding.

If their lies go unchallenged, they will become truths and we should get used to calling each other 'comrade'.

Answer 5

Were was all the outrage with the swift boat ads? You people are so obvious. I think the thing that upsets you most is you know it might be true!

Answer 6

No way. It's called free speech. Move On did not state that General Petraeus was going to betray us. They put a question mark at the end of it. No where did they call him a traitor in the ad. Do some research, generals in Vietnam lied to us. They are not always the best man for the job. We have every right to question them and check their loyalty to the people or to the Administration. How is Iraq helping our National Security? What are our goals (this week)?

Answer 7

I think the people at moveon.org have gone completely insane. Tactics like the ad are evidence of losers getting desperate.

Answer 8

It's a traitorous statement.

Soros and his smear merchants will stoop to any level, no matter how low.

This is a man that was approved unanimously. There are none who question his qualifications or ability. This isn't a guy running for office - it is a man who has given his life to serving his country with excellence for what....over 30 years?

Way to show your colors, MoveOn. Just put out a pro-jihad ad and get it over with. You aren't fooling anyone.

Answer 9

First, learn to spell "fascist"

Second, it was an exercise of free speech.

Third, only a FASCIST censors free speech!!!

Answer 10

It was tacky and America has seen through it. It has backfired and generated support for the Bush Administration which I can assure you, was not it's intention. The NYT also took a huge hit, and the only winners were Bush and Petraeus.