HUGE pushback. Might have struck a little nerve with them calling them perfidious, backstabbing, traitor-monkeys.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
2007-09-21 03:49:02 · 26 answers · asked by Private Deek 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Goldenrae, I am fully aware of what free speech entails, are you? When you speak about anything you had better be ready for the consequences of that speech.
Free speech doesn mean consequence free speech.
2007-09-21 03:56:37 · update #1
Koyk, I never said the WORLD was infinite, I said that there doesn't seem to be a limit on wealth and liberals seem to think wealth is a finite resource. I think wealth is intimately tied to human ingenuity and resourcefulness; a seemingly limitless resource. Don't put words in my mouth.
2007-09-21 04:05:38 · update #2
Opinionated, true censorship can only violate our right to free speech if it is done by the GOVERNMENT ONLY. You have no "right" to free speech everywhere, you have no "right to free speech here on yahoo, you have no "right" to BE HEARD, you have no "right" to speek without being challenged.
2007-09-21 04:08:16 · update #3
The MoveOn ad reinforces the public impression that the Democrats dislike the military and find it easy to believe the most dishonorable things about them.
Their last nominee made accusations of routine atrocities against US soldiers.
Their elected federal representatives have compared our soldiers to Nazis, said they took over Saddam's torture camps, and called them cold-blooded killers.
The last Democrat president said he could understand why so many good people came to loathe the military.
The frontrunner for their 2008 presidential nomination pretty much called Petraeus a liar to his face, not two weeks ago.
This is the public impression of the Democrats. They can either disavow it, or embrace it.
My impression is that many of them are doing neither, and trying to have it both ways.
If they think the military is so awful, then they have a duty to be vocal about it, to "warn" us. But again the impression I, and many others, are left with is that they are hostile to the military and national defense, but don't have the courage of their convictions to come out and say it. Except for Kucinich, maybe.
PS Here's another tidbit:
George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn’s "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don’t understand is that I didn’t want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/aeiprotestorswant.htm
The source is Jim Webb, now a Democratic senator.
2007-09-21 04:07:02 · answer #1 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scared? Even a blind guy can see that this is a Republican faking to be certainly one of Hillary's Democratic supporters. And for him to apply a Hispanic lady to attempt and fool the Latinos is doubly ridiculous. yet, McCain won't even vote for his very own amnesty invoice. He have been given no love for the Latino community. He purely needs their votes. isn't is unhappy that McCain can't communicate on the subject concerns? You conservatives and reasonable conservatives are people who must be scared. Your candidate basically has smear approaches. Now this is pathetic.
2016-10-19 07:33:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess I don't know why I am hearing so much more about this than about when republican campaigners calles Max Cleland a traitor or swift-boated Kerry or accused John McCain of possibly not being a loyal American because he had been a POW.
The pushback I think is from the Republican side, supporters of Democratic ideas finally adopted your tactics and you do not like it one little bit....
Having said that, I did not support the MoveOn ad just because I thought it was too much like republican tactics.
EDIT: to Ernest T Worrell up there, just exactly when in the last few years did you all decide that free speech is treason?
2007-09-21 04:00:21 · answer #3 · answered by ash 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I find it interesting that independent reports (GAO) and news sources back up the MoveOn.org ad with facts. Yet General Patraeus' own testimony disputes the Freedom's Watch 'pro-war' TV ads. For example:
'Pro-war' TV Ads (Freedom's Watch)
-- A paraplegic vet says "they attacked us on 9/11". Yet even Gen. Petraeus stated that he's not aware of that connection. When asked by Sen. Byrd if there was any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Petraeus replied, "Not that I am aware of, Senator."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/12/1410237
-- "Ari Fleischer, President Bush’s former press secretary, is now a spokesman for the Freedom's Watch, a new group of prominent conservatives behind the $15 million ad campaign . Mr. Fleischer said the central message of Freedom’s Watch is that “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.” Fleischer couldn't even remember the soldier's name when asked on Hardball.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/23/ari-fleischers-propaganda-iraq-war-ad/
-- Apparently Freedom's Watch had enough 'lead time' on the content of Petraeus' report to create the ads and get them on the air beginning Aug.22... just in time to 'remind' members of Congress returning from vacation. MSNBC and CNBC refused to run the ads; FOX and CNN had no such qualms about taking some of that $15 million.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php
The Patraeus Ad (MoveOn.org)...
-- Petraeus Ad, this link in turn links to the sources used as basis for ad text:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
-- Closely examine the numbers. For example, US sources say 165 died in Baghdad; Iraqi Int. Ministry says 428 (from morgue and hospital records). A significant reduction in violence is possible when one does not count sectarian violence or car bombings. Using the entry point of a bullet to the head (back vs. front) to determine if a body is included in the death toll... is that 'cooking the books' or just 'war math'?
--- 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/
--- Another side of the civil war in Anbar:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1424208
-- Skelton condemned the ad the first day of testimony, but did nothing to lessen the controversy and doubt surrounding the Patraeus report. Instead, he had former CIA analyst Ray McGovern arrested after McGovern 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?
-- Bush drew parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report 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
Yes, I agree... "they doth protest too much"! Comparing fact to fiction, it's much easier to see who are the "perfidious, backstabbing, traitor-monkeys"... Isn't it?
2007-09-21 04:20:23 · answer #4 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Free Speech you gotta love it.
MoveOn is free to speak out. Guess what it also means people can speak out against MoveOn that is part of Free Speech liberals don't like.
They believe they can say anything they want and nobody should say anything back.
That is not how it works if free society.
So for those who are waving the Free Speech it goes for conservatives too.
2007-09-21 04:02:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
That's because you guys keep saying a particular group has no right to state a particular opinion. That is a direct attack on free speech and a clear demonstration of the double standard that has reigned during the Bush administration. No, I will not stand for it.
Consequences for free speech? When are the gulags coming?
2007-09-21 03:57:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
What's really a shame is that people like you didn't look past the outrageousness of the "betray us" statement to notice that MoveOn's facts were solid. I don't agree with the approach they took, but unlike the Swiftboaters, they backed up their statements.
2007-09-21 04:01:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Blew up in their proverbial face. Now they are pissing and moaning, crying foul. By the look of the senate vote a few got the message, but some are just hard headed and they will be cleaning egg off their faces for weeks, months to come. Republicans are going to get as much mileage out of this as they can get, when all the Dems had to do was disclaim the ad in the first place. I would say that is a huge political blunder and they still don't get it..... this is too funny.... listen to all the pundits trying to compare swift boat to moveon.... this is Hilarius.
The free speech thing kills me too, no one is claiming they don't have the right to say it, we are just holding them accountable for what they said.....lol... free speech,,, what does that mean if I say it, you have to go along with it or your anti-free speech...
2007-09-21 03:57:52 · answer #8 · answered by libsticker 7 · 8⤊ 5⤋
Freedom of Speech means you are responsible for what you say. If people don't like what you say then you are at fault for the negative publicity which you will receive.
2007-09-21 03:56:14 · answer #9 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
This from the man who thinks the world is infinite
me thinks you still have to lance that mean looking boil you call a brain
2007-09-21 03:56:27 · answer #10 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋