- Liberals moaning about illegals
- Correct phrase is illegal immigrants
- More info. about greenhouse effect
- Global warming
- War needed to be clarified
- Endorsement for Bob Murphy
- Colo. Rockies encourage scalping
- McCarthy moment needed
- Is it too late to avoid bombing Iran?
- We should hear from the victim too
MoveOn.org’s ad
J
The regular price of a full price NY Times Ad is $116,000.
Move On. Org paid $65,000.
Does this not constitute an unreported $51,000 political contribution? (Yes, I realize this is not a contribution to the Democrat Party directly - but indirectly it is doing the Democrats dirty work)...Is this how illicit indirect political contributions are made now that Norman Hse is in custody?
More seriously, questions of contribution aside, is not this discount indicative of slanting of the news - now by price discrimination is ad pricing by the New York Times beyond the editorial page?
The media continually calls for investigations of politicians, where is the journalistic ethics/investigation police for newspapers?
This letter has not been edited.
I think they call this capitalism. Free enterprise.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 20, 2007 02:33 PMA good point! The entire episode is nothing less than a disgrace.
Sharon I agree but would you be so forward if it were a Conservative group rather than a liberal one?
Posted by on September 20, 2007 02:39 PMSharon, how is purposefully taking a loss in income, as the NYTimes did, "capitalism. Free enterprise"?
Actually, it does more to show the Times' political bias that they're willing to lose $51,000 to help a political partner than anything else.
Posted by Ted in Vegas on September 20, 2007 02:40 PMThey gave Giulianni the exact same price for his full page ad the next day. Go figure.
But seriously, this is way more important than anything else going on. I hope this keeps you con-whackjobs from having to think too hard for another couple of weeks, as you parrot around your "outrage" over this trivial incident.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 02:50 PMThis is great! Democratic memo to GOP and 'conservatives' : please do keep the conversation focused on the Iraq war and the shocking (!) accusation that this administration might be misleading America.
Don't you get that's the whole point of the MoveOn.org ad?
Take my advice -- your time/effort is best spent scaring middle/lower-income Americans with images of brown-skinned people in their midst, so as soon as you stop giving MoveOn more volume to their message and start running anti "illegal" immigration ads, the better your chances will be in November 2008.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 02:58 PMThanks 2:50. Well put. Republicans are so desperate.
Posted by GK on September 20, 2007 03:00 PMThis issue is a total red herring. There is no "regular" price. It depends on whether there are graphics, black and white vs. color, placement, scheduling, etc. If this is such a liberal plot, why did Giuliani get the same rate?
Posted by Romulus on September 20, 2007 03:19 PMWhen is the RNC going to report the entire broadcasting budget of Fox News as a political contribution?
Posted by HistoryRepeats on September 20, 2007 03:37 PMWow, a bunch of people who have no idea how the Ad industry works, speaking about the Ad industry.
I don't know the NYT rates and discounts off-hand, but nearly all pubs give special rates based on number of ads an organization commits to run within a year (called a contract rate), discounts to nonprofits (often both 501 c 3 and 501 c 4 organizations), varying prices based of color (4-color, 2-color, spot-color), placement, day of the week, etc...
The "rate" they keep mentioning is the nondiscounted, noncontract rate and is very inaccurate... they might even be mentioning the Sunday and 4-color rate. It's not an apples-to-apples argument. In fact, I think it's probably more unfair if they gave Giuliani the same rate without making him agree to the same contract terms (which they might have... I don't know).
Simple fact, whether you like the ad or not, the rate moveon.org was charged is a nonissue.
Posted by JB on September 20, 2007 03:51 PMThe outrage,
Oh my the outrage over this, keep hammering on this you neo con troop supporters. But please don't mention the bill killed in the senate about troop leave.
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 20, 2007 04:07 PM"More seriously, questions of contribution aside, is not this discount indicative of slanting of the news - now by price discrimination is ad pricing by the New York Times beyond the editorial page?"
And if it is, so what? The New York Times is a business, with its own slant on things - just like Fox News - or Rush Limbaugh- or the New York Post. . I notice you don't complain about their right-leaning slant. Why does your sobbing about "fairness" only apply to the left?
If you don't like the NYT, don't read it - isn't that the way capitalism works?
Posted by drew on September 20, 2007 04:11 PMYou forgot about the different rates for different zones and prepays.
The good news is that this seems to be the only thing the right-wing echo machine can get a rise out of these days.
Posted by Colorado Dave on September 20, 2007 04:36 PMKarl - The bill you referenced would leave fewer troops available for deployment. In otherwords, a backdoor attempt by the dems to impliment troop withdrawal.
So please spare us the dems care more about the troops line. This bill from Webb had absolutely nothing to do with caring and everything to do with trying to please the dems fringe left supporters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drew - The controversy here boils down to whether or not the discount violated the Campaign Reform Act or the Election Campaign Act which limit contributions to $5000 per year. Corporations are actually prohibited from making any contributions.
The Times asserts the discount given is a standard rate for "advocacy" ads which run on a "standby" basis and are not guaranteed what day the add will run.
This reasoning would fly if it wasn't for the extremely time sensitive nature of the ad. It was imperative to moveon that the ad appear when it did to obtain the effect they desired. You wouldn't spend $65000 for a time sensitive ad without placement guarantee anymore than you would fly standby to get to your own wedding.
The ACU has filed suit and is demanding a full investigation into the matter.
NY Times Director of Advertising claims no run date guaruntee was given and states even if they did give preferential treatment, "any investigation would fail to prove it."
And any attempt at to construe this as similar to the swift boat attack on Kerry would fall short. You see, the NY Times refused to run "advocacy" ads from the swift boat veterans.
Posted by KW on September 20, 2007 05:37 PMIt is a part of campaign finance law that all political ads be given the lowest rate per square inch/minute and all must be charged the same. The liberal icon known as the New York Times may be disgustingly slanted but in this I can't see that they did anything illegal. Stupid is another matter.
One suggestion has made sense. Let go of this and get on to the real issues or the only prices you will be interested in are the ones increased by Liberal spending and nonsense.
Posted by momma y on September 20, 2007 05:51 PMKw, you should be ashamed of yourself! You dare question the integrity and righteousness of the left,and their revered leader, George Soros.
The death of true Liberalism in America, exemplified by Kennedy, Humphrey, etc., was a sad passing in this country. In it's place we have a very narrow minded, limited scope entity calling themselves "Progressives". Anything not fitting in their world view is to be condemned and attacked as unjust -- a new form of the old standby, prejudice.
Of course, the same passing of true Conservatism can also be duly noted. In place of the likes of Goldwater you now have jokes such as Bush and Limbaugh who twist the Constitution to fit their own agendas; and allowed the American equivalent to the Taliban - the Evangelical Right -- to hijack their sense of social equality and push their own agenda to force all Americans to live according to their philosophical moral code.
And, we are stuck with yapping puppies like those on this page defending the corruption of their own respective political parties; and the demise of the American character and integrity for political points.
And people wonder why we have a dysfunctional federal government -- we not only encourage it, we nourish it.
Posted by on September 20, 2007 05:57 PMI see they had a vote in the Senate today to condemn the false anti -american ad.72 voted correctly ,25 voted for the terrorist,including that stupid anti-American crack"hillary clinton".
Posted by Keith on September 20, 2007 06:43 PM05:57PM anonymous,
Take heart, sir. On the line of postings for the letter concerning the General and MoveOn, written by James Jones, Jones now informs us that HE IS A LIBERAL.
A poster who generally supports Jones's positions - and certainly does so in this case - refers to Democrats as "whores", thereby insuring that the kind of "true liberalism in America" you speak of - now identified as being represented by James Jones and claque - has been removed from the onus of being known as Democrat; for whom the epithet "progressive" - with all its negative implications as you offer them - may, we suppose, now suffice.
Of course the egregious prejudices, as well as outrageously fantastic and narrow minded "world view" of Jones and his claque, are rather contradictory to what has been called "liberal" for a long time. But, I am certain all those now worshiping at the new shrine will figure out how to invent enough double talk, and meaningless rhetoric, to deal with that little contretemps.
Oh, btw, the "yapping puppies" are now to be known as . . . what? ("AnAmerican, etc.)
Anyone for an intelligent discussion about something meaningful?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 20, 2007 06:47 PMOld Grouch
Good luck in finding a meaningful discussion. As of late it appears that sniping and nipping at the heels of one another has taken precedent over debate and argument. Where good repartee and spirited disagreements are enjoyable and challenging, too much emphasis on ad hominem attacks and assertions of absolute judgments somewhat defeats the purpose of intellectual jousting and exchange.
I'm sure that it's just a temporary straying due to lackluster letters, or something in the air, and will return to normal in the near future.
Posted by mongoose on September 20, 2007 07:16 PMOG, I keep looking for JJ`s letter on Moveon and can`t get to it. Help!
Posted by Sharon B. on September 20, 2007 07:19 PMPS Old Grouch
I wasn't trying to be anonymous -- simply failed to log in properly -- in my 05:57 PM rant. Just blew off some frustration...apologize if I offended anyone in particular.
Posted by mongoose on September 20, 2007 07:20 PMHi Sharon,
It's in the line of postings in response to the letter from Jones. Heading: Gen. Patraeus & MoveOn.Org. Written by James Jones of Littleton, 9/18/07 - put on the Website @ 1:41 PM. (About 8-10 letters down the website listings from this one.)
Go down through the line of postings to just below the letter of 09/19/07, posted @ 07:58 PM, for Jonesy's follow up letters on line.
It's hilarious!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 20, 2007 07:44 PMHow do we know for a fact that the letter writer has factual info as to what the cost was that they paid for the ad and what the normal price is?
Posted by A True American on September 20, 2007 08:02 PMIt’s all right, more Moveon.org talks, more I’ll move to the right. The beauty about it is I’m sure I’m not alone.
Posted by Uno on September 20, 2007 08:14 PMUno,
You are the farthest rigtwing anybody can go.
The right are once again showing their idiocy.
Posted by rick on September 20, 2007 08:36 PMRick, I don’t usually correct people on spelling and grammatical errors, but when you call people idiots, at least you should try to polish your language skills in the same sentence. Otherwise it just makes you look pretty stupid, as you probably are.
Posted by Uno on September 20, 2007 09:12 PMBig Jim, where was your outrage when Bush, Bill "phone-sex offender" O'Reilly, ROve, and Cheney (surrender monkeys, defeatist, communist-siders, and draft dodgers), smeared McCain (NAM POW)? Where was your outrage when these 4 BENEDICT ARNOLDS smeared Kerrey (lost leg in NAM), Cleland (triple NAM amputee), JF Kerry (NAM hero), Daschle, Ward Churchill (NAM hero), etc.?
Posted by draftdodgingisntafamilyvalue on September 20, 2007 09:18 PMOld Grouch, thanks, I thought his letter had been posted on Moveon.org. My mistake.
Papers can charge what they want. It is their right, right?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 20, 2007 09:18 PMOh my golly! (wrings hankey) There was an ad! In a newspaper! (clutches pearls).
Meanwhile, habeas is not yet restored. FISA is still carte blanch snooping for BushCo. The unmitigated disaster that is the invasion and occupation of Iraq is going forward full steam ahead.
And all KW can think of is an ad! In a newspaper!
But he's not partisan doncha know.
A joke is he.
Posted by Charles B on September 20, 2007 09:30 PMOG
If it keeps those who would rather rant than think occupied I'll contribute to the next ad.
I'm certain if it were a conservative newspaper with an ad calling Hilary Clinton to task for some liberal statement or policy there would be just as much noise on both sides. Only thing that would change would be the ones complaining and the ones protecting and celebrating. I hope there is no limit on what a newspaper can print in the political arena. That is part of free speech and should be left alone.
Be gone for about five days. My pacemaker/defibrilator is acting nuts. going to ER when husband gets home from work.
All of you are stupider then hell.
Posted by The guy on the couch on September 20, 2007 10:06 PMMan KW you must spend a lot of time compiling all that spin from those conservatives sites you visit.
Posted by GK on September 21, 2007 05:27 AMGrouch,
You are not a liberal. Neither is Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid or any others leaders of the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman is a liberal but he was forced out as an apostate.
You are leftists. You seek to inhibit individual liberty be empowering the authority of the government. You probably like to thing of yourself as a liberal because it sounds more noble then your acutal philososphy but you are actually just bastardizing language to put up a facade over your materialistic agenda.
I have great respect for liberals ideals. I have no respect for leftism. Your charge that I have insulted liberals is completely false.
The problem is that the Democratic Party, once the party of liberals, has been hijacked by leftists.
And in leftism you are, as I have said, pitch-perfect.
Sharon B,
Soldiers are different from politicians. Politicians are advocates. Generals are professionals.
Where the Politician will try to make some case to advance an agenda, the General will tell you what he thinks.
It is important to the national welfare that we keep that distinction bright.
People will say all sorts of things about Bush or Pelosi and that's fair enough. But to slime the honor of man in the serivce of his country, who risks his life every day in its defense and command thousands of young Americans doing exactly the same thing is disgusting.
The Democrats running to be Commander in Chief, with the exception of Joe Biden, have failed to condemn this ad. That's because their fear of MoveOn.org and what it might do to their candidacy is greater than their respect for the soldiers they seek to lead.
That one of our two great parties would be reduced to this level is a sad state of affairs.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 07:05 AMWhoop Whoop!
Posted by TJ on September 21, 2007 07:05 AMSchwartz,
I am not sufficiently versed in campaign finance law to know if this transaction was a violation. In my opinion, the current laws should be repealed because they impinge on free speech.
I favor umlimited donations and full disclosure but that is a separate topic.
So if the Times wants to give away ads to MoveOn.org to slime American generals then I think they should have every right to do so. I would prefer that the Times' stockholders hold the editors accountable.
The more impotant issue is that the integrity of a line officer has been insulted by an important policitcal action committee with the aid of the country's leading newspaper as he leads the troops in the field. Of the Democratic candidates vying for Commander-in-Chief only one, Joe Biden, had the courage to counter the ad.
That is a disgraceful set of affairs and that, in my opinion, is the important lesson learned.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 07:19 AMJones obviously hasn't been in the military. Politics in the military has always been a fact of life. Military people, like politicians, are human beings. Human beings practice politics. What garbage this man produces!!
As for risking his life every day, there have not been a whole lot of generals, as in none, that have been killed or wounded in Iraq. Rather than posting facts instead of fancy, Jones can't seem to keep off the pulpit, preaching his usual sanctimonious propaganda. That is no discredit to General Petraeus; it is simply a fact that gets in the way of Jones' desire to overdramatize the way preachers so often do.
I did not think the MoveOn ad was appropriate. But that doesn't make me want to put out the kind of slime that Jones is a master at.
Truth,
Why was the ad inappropriate?
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 07:49 AMJames Jones,
You are one of the most hilariously funny kooks on the website.
Aside from your hyperbolic, overactive, and idiotically vituperative imagination working overtime, whenever you decide to tell everyone else what you fantasize is their position, and/or what is "wrong" with them, you don't have a clue about anything; much less even basic knowlege of political positions.
If you're such a "liberal", Jonesy, why are you such a strident and vociferous anti-abortionist, and anti-choice, anti-feminist misogynyst and male chauvinist? And why do you spend so much time posting support for an amendment that would make a pair of cells in a petri dish legally a "person"? And, why do you so vigorously support inserting superstition into the Constitution of the United States, by way of defining marriage to exclude gay people?
Or are you now abjuring your own previous writings, and renouncing your previous positions; positions on which you have expatiated at great length over many months, constantly insulting and denigrating those who disagreed with your senseless rants by calling them "liberals", among other terms used pejoratively?
Stick to "theology", and preaching, Jonesy. That's where you shine, blathering nonsense about "religion", and criticizing other people's "morals"; two more subjects where you know nothing about anything; which really is your best posssible qualification for the pulpit.
The simple fact of the matter is, Jonsey, you don't have the basic intelligence necessary to claim the distinction of being a liberal.
Charles B:
So, you do not have Habes corpus and FISA has Carte Blance? Do you really believe that? Are you really scared that you will bwe arrested or listened to( or spied on) without justifiable cause? If so, you are truely paranoid to the point of psycosis. Are you scared to make phone calls or go outside?
May some jihadists or drug dealers should worry.
AF
Posted by on September 21, 2007 08:48 AMGrouch,
I am opposed to abortion because I think that the fetues has a right to life. The same right Jefferson decribed in the Declaration of Indpendence as haveing been endowed by the creator.
Defending the life of an innocent person is a liberal postion. Liberty becomes meaningless if society does not defend you life.
Disposing of the unwanted is the leftist position.
I have posted here many times calling for Roe to be over-tuned - that is all. I think Roe is bad law.
I am also opposed to re-defining marriage. I think that the best social construct is one man wed to one woman.
(Charles B, I don't want to confuse you here. I also think that the one man and one woman should not be from the same family, i.e. father and daughter. I am also opposed to the social normalization of incest).
As a leftist you face two main obstacles in achieving dominion of state over man - God and the Family. That's why you want God kicked out of the public square and marriage destroyed.
Your case to establish the supremacy of state over man is clearly not a liberal position. My postition are typically liberal because the intergrity of the individual always lies at the core.
But truely this is a distraction.
You don't want to get into the Petraeus case because it exposes the fact that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by leftists.
Here is what Executive VP Wayne La Pierre of the NRA has to say about the media"Talk radio is a way around the media filter.It's a way to get the truth to the American public that bypasses the CENSORSHIP of the 'mainstream' media".Some media outlets have refused to run NRA ads to set the record straight on the gun issue.That is your media in the US.
Posted by An American on September 21, 2007 09:40 AMJones,
As to the Petraeus matter, I have posted, where that is the topic of substance.
The prices of advertisements are of no concern to me. And there is no good reason why they should become such.
Crankiness over petty items of minuscule trivia, and other people's business, is YOUR forte, not that of a real liberal; which, as I say again, you don't have the basic intellignce necessary to claim the distinction of being.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 21, 2007 11:14 AMWard Churchill "Nam Hero"? Give me a break! He drove a truck.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 11:43 AMGrouch,
Yes you have posted on Petreus.
You have said that Petreaus is a liar. But you have offered no evidence to support your charge.
You have said I have no liberal principles because I lack the intelligence. But you have offered no evidence to support your charge.
I detect a pattern here:
Insult and MoveOn.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 12:08 PMJim Schwartz of Centennial writes: but indirectly it is doing the Democrats dirty work)...
Jim: For God's sake! Get a grip; chill out: If dirty work is evident blame it on the bulk of the American people whom Bush bushwhacked. I am an Independent and the ad expresses my sentiment. Bush cranked up Airforce One at $60,000 per hour and jaunted over to Baghdad to tell "Betrayus" what to say to those responsible for the ad: The American people.
Jim: America, with some dissenting Republicans placed the ad in question and the World danced a jig.
Jim: If the ad had not been placed, the NY Times would have lost $65,000, about one hour of Bush's flight aforementioned. The Daily did not lose anything; it gained. Get it? The Democrats did not gain; they did not lose; the jury is still out.
Posted by RG on September 21, 2007 12:32 PMJames Jones,
YOU ARE THE LIAR! As usual, of course.
But, that's to be expected. You have not even the remotest inkling of the meaning of the word, "truth".
And your wierd flights of imaginative fantasy concerning what others think, say/have-said, feel, believe, do, etc., etc., when you take off on them are notorious.
I have no opinion, whatsoever, concerning General Petraeus personally. And, I have never expressed one.
I have presented a scenario concerning alternatives in a particular situation. Only YOU imagine that it is a matter of personality.
And you have the habit of always assuming something personal when nothing of the kind is there, being unable to make the distinction between reality and your own infantile solipsism. That would take intelligence, which, as I say again, you do not really have.
democraps are the culture of corruption.
Posted by Keith on September 21, 2007 01:09 PMOG - James Jones ate your lunch! Again!
Posted by on September 21, 2007 01:14 PMHave any of you happy-to-bash, fear-mongering, we-are-the-poor-embattled-protectors-of-your-liberty necon nazis thought to consult the NYT and their advertising policies? If you had, you would know that the rate given to move on is exactly the same as the rate given to any group wishing to post an issue ad with no specific run-date specified. The whining and fact obfuscation continues unabated in the scared-to-death conservative camp!
Posted by MIchael on September 21, 2007 01:32 PMGrouch,
You just posted:
'I have no opinion, whatsoever, concerning General Petraeus personally. And, I have never expressed one.'
After posting:
"Insofar as the General's report be concerned: It would appear that everyone would either prefer to ignore, or just doesn't want to know, the simple fact that even 4 Star Generals have to follow orders.
When the Commander in Chief says: "Go out and give THIS REPORT", the General has 2 options.
1. He can snap to attention; say, "Yes sir!"; salute properly; do an about face; and go out and GIVE THIS REPORT.
2. He can refuse; and then become - almost immediately - a "General, Retired".
Petraeus is still an Active Duty 4 Star General.
You figure it out."
Posted by Old Grouch on September 20, 2007 07:27 PM
General Pretaeus began his testimony with this statement:
"At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or the Congress."
Generals do things for a reason. General Petraeus made this statement to make it impossible to charge him with "following orders" without also accusing him of being a liar.
The General went out of his way and made it abundantly clear that his report is an objective assessment of his evaluation.
When you charge with giving a false report to keep his job, you also accuse him of being a liar.
There's just no getting around that one Grouch.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 01:41 PMHas anyone considered that the TImes may have a policy of reduced ad rates for non-profit organizations that they apply across the board, regardless of political message? The First Amendment protects both Move On's right to say whatever they want about the government and the Time's right to print whatever ads they want at whatever price they want.
Posted by Rachel on September 21, 2007 01:42 PMRG,
The jury never comes in - not fully. That's why it's important to make the case along the way.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 01:45 PMJames: The jury always come in with a verdict unless it is hung as in the Phil Specter (sp) case in L.A. The daily would not decline an offer of $65,000, right? I wonder if Jim Swartz knows what he speak of: $116,000?
Posted by JVB on September 21, 2007 01:56 PM"I am opposed to abortion because I think that the fetues has a right to life. The same right Jefferson decribed in the Declaration of Indpendence as haveing been endowed by the creator."
So your argument is raising a religious construct (fetuses are people with god-given rights) into a more important position than the rights of born women. The constitution describes many rights beginning with time or place of birth, none with conception.
"I am also opposed to re-defining marriage. I think that the best social construct is one man wed to one woman."
No argument provided, just your opinion.
My opinion is if the state (not some church) validated same-sex marriage, there would be more monogamy in the gay community, and fewer Republican senators trolling airport bathrooms. A boon for society.
Can I have Old Grouch's lunch?
JVB
I have no idea. I don't particularly care about the financial aspects.
RG and I communicate in metaphors.
(No Charles B, that's not with flashing lights from the deck.)
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 02:11 PMRepugnants,
"fetuses are people with god-given rights"
True but awkwardly framed.
The clearer formulation is
All humans beings are endowed with the God-given right to life and the fetus is a human being.
It might be easier if you copied that somewhere and then you can just paste it when needed.
Also, it's not a religious construct. In fact, it was written into the Declaration by a deist.
Other than that - pretty close.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 02:22 PM"Also, it's not a religious construct. In fact, it was written into the Declaration by a deist."
Deism (God exists) is a religious construct.
Fetuses are potential human beings.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan women give birth to real men!) on September 21, 2007 04:08 PMRe: Habeas, Denver Post page 6B today.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 21, 2007 04:14 PMRepugnants
No, Deists accept God and reject religion. That is rather the point.
No, there is no such thing as a potential human being. You cannot alter reality with language. That's like trying to fool God with a metaphor.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 04:38 PMThank you!
It is gratifying to be acknowleged in one's own time.
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 05:00 PM"Insult and MoveOn."
Describes Old Crotch's...errr...Grouch's tatics perfectly. He must be a charter member of the organization.
Posted by on September 21, 2007 05:26 PMWhat is unfortunate is the refusal of people like Jones to admit their hypocrisy.
There is simply no way a person can say this, as Jones does:
"All humans beings are endowed with the God-given right to life and the fetus is a human being."
And yet believe that it is OK to kill innocent people in the prosecution of a war.
According to prior posts by Jones, he, like most people, believes that in certain instances a person has the right to take the life of another person. Clearly, in that instance the other person does not have a right to life. Jones clearly believes, according to his prior posts, that self-defense is an exception to the claim that all human beings have a right to life. But he is not honest enough to own up to that.
But Jones is simply unwilling to admit that he does not believe that all human beings have a right to life.
That is more than rank hypocrisy; it is dishonesty in spades.
The reason for his dishonesty is clear. It is easier to falsely claim, as Jones does, a black and white belief that has no exceptions than to honestly admit that there are exceptions. He wants to avoid the difficult question of when it is legitimate to take the life of another.
A person can validly claim that there is no legitimate reason for taking the life of a fetus whereas there are legitimate reasons why in certain cases there is a right to take the life of a born person. That is really what Jones believes even though he doesn't have the integrity to admit that.
Truth: There's no contradiction in JJ's beliefs. Like the Taliban believes it's Allah will to kill enemies of Islam, JJ and his group believes it's God's will to kill those opposed to, or a threat to, Christianity and it's way of life.
No dichotomy here my friend -- it's black and white written in the Good Book...to be followed by all American Taliban...errr..Christians. The end justifies the means...
Posted by on September 21, 2007 06:03 PMTruth,
You ramble endlessly about ridiculous, irrational positions that no one have ever taken only to avoid the question about a direct quote you made.
You posted:
I did not think the MoveOn ad was appropriate.
Posted by Truth on September 21, 2007 07:33 AM
And so I asked
Truth,
Why was the ad inappropriate?
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 07:49 AM
How about diving into reality for a few minustes?
Johes: "You ramble endlessly about ridiculous, irrational positions that no one have ever taken only to avoid the question about a direct quote you made."
Sorry, Jones, to have embarrassed you by showing what a dishonest hypocrite you are. Have you noticed how a person will launch into the kind of meaningless tirade I quote above when they find themselves confronted by the ugly truth of who they really are?
If you had any honesty or courage, you would admit that your position is that you don't think there is ever any justification for taking the life of a fetus, but you do think there is justification under some circumstances for taking the life of a born person.
The raw and unpleasant fact is that you do not even believe that there is never any justification for killing a fetus because if the fetus is killed in the prosecution of a war you consider that justifiable. Your complete lack of integrity and honesty is disgusting.
But for you to admit what your various posts show that you believe would interfere with your use of your propaganda advertising banner that all life is precious. You make Madison Ave. look downright honest.
You are a pimp who prostitutes religion to serve your own political ends.
Posted by Truth on September 21, 2007 07:08 PMtruth,
Why wont you answer jj's question?
Un Truth doesn't have to answer questions. He is the all knowing, all seeing pontificator of absolute truth and wisdom...the real deal wizard of oz...
Posted by on September 21, 2007 07:57 PMTruth,
OK - I misjudged you. The man who writes the sentence:
"The raw and unpleasant fact is that you do not even believe that there is never any justification for killing a fetus because if the fetus is killed in the prosecution of a war you consider that justifiable."
is genuinely confused so I will explain.
I posted that I think,
"All humans beings are endowed with the God-given right to life and the fetus is a human being."
Which is not the same thing as saying that life is a God-given right that must never be taken.
I have argued here, which I think at some point you seemed to acknowledge, that there are circumstances when it is morally justified to take human life. The necessary condition is self-defense and the principle can be applied to capital punishment, just war or abortion.
For the sake of discussion abortion is a good example.
Abortion is justified morally when the life of the mother is at risk. If the mother determines to abort the fetus to protect her own life, that decision can be morally just.
Now how can that be if the fetus has the God-given right to life?
It can be because the mother also has the God-given right to life.
So in the case the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are both in conflict and jeopardy regardless of the decision.
In this case, it is for the mother to determine the just course and society should take no interest.
So you see the fact that the right to life is God-given does not mean that a life can never be taken when lives are themselves in conflict. You might now have some inkling how this principle of self-defense also applies to capital punishment and just war theory.
So the statements I have offered are not contradictory, in fact they are inter-dependant. I am not a hypocrite who does not have the intergrity to own up to his own positions. I am not a pimp who prostitutes religion. The truth is not nearly as ugly as you thought.
What a relief this news must be for you.
But let's stop talking about me. How about if we get back to the statement you made
I did not think the MoveOn ad was appropriate.
Posted by Truth on September 21, 2007 07:33 AM
Which has nothing to do with me. And tell us
Why was the ad inappropriate?
Posted by James Jones on September 21, 2007 07:49 AM
Which is actually all about you. Certainly a man with your devotion to the truth has thought carefully about this question and it really shouldn't be difficult to provide your reasoning.
Jones: "I posted that I think, "All humans beings are endowed with the God-given right to life and the fetus is a human being."
Which is not the same thing as saying that life is a God-given right that must never be taken."
Gotcha. So let's reword the statement so that it makes sense:
According to Jones, all human beings are endowed with a God-given right to life which man sometimes has the right to take away, and the fetus is a human being.
Worded to accurately reflect your thinking, the statement by itself is meaningless.
Jones, the only reason people like you make statements such as that is to support their claim that abortion is wrong. In other words, your argument is and has always been that if God has given someone a right to life then man cannot take that right away. Otherwise, the statement is meaningless.
As to your question, Jones, the MoveOn ad infers that Petraeus is not just mistaken but that he is a traitor. That is why I disapprove of it. Isn't that why you disapprove of it?
Posted by Truth on September 22, 2007 07:48 AMTruth,
So, you don't concur with the General's assessment of the conditions in Iraq but you also don't think he is a traitor that is, you don"t think he's betraying the American people.
What do you think candidates for President, who would become Commander in Chief, should do when the country's leading newspaper falsley accuses an American General of betraying his country as he leads the troops in battle.
Do you think that they should say about the ad?
Before you ask, I think they should make a public statement condemning the add for insulting the honor and intergrity of an American soldier fighting every day in the defense of his nation. I think they should descdribe the ad as disugusting.
You did word my postition accurately. Pehaps not elegantly but it is correct.
I understnand the statement conveys no meaning to you and that's ok long as we are clear on the point.
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 08:20 AMTruth,
Over on another line, Jonesy tells us that he is a "liberal". Er . . . that is, he tells us that in one posting on the line.
A few postings down in the line, however, this same James Jones tells us: "I am not a liberal. I am a conservative."
I tend to recall what has been said to me by others, both from my ancestral line and elsewhere:
"The man speakes with forked tongue." Also, "This guy talks out of both sides of his mouth at once."
Which is one - among many others - of the reasons I've always said he belongs in a Pulpit.
Then again, he does use this forum as his pulpit, regularly; so I guess it all comes out more or less balanced in the end.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 22, 2007 08:48 AMJones: "You did word my postition accurately. Pehaps not elegantly but it is correct."
Perhaps the next time you will word your statement accurately instead of in the deceptive and incomplete way you have been wording it. The reason that the statement as I worded it is not elegant is because your position in not elegant. You have been substituting elegance for accuracy and for truth. Not nice, Jones.
"I understnand the statement conveys no meaning to you"
In this short time you apparently forgot that it is I who composed the statement in order to give you a way to be more honest about your beliefs. While I have provided you with a way to be more honest, keep in mind that your statement is also meaningless since it does not touch on when man can take a life, or, using your nomenclature, when man can overrule your version of God.
Posted by Truth on September 22, 2007 09:24 AMTruth,
" keep in mind that your statement is also meaningless since it does not touch on when man can take a life, "
Apparenty you missed
The necessary condition is self-defense and the principle can be applied to capital punishment, just war or abortion.
Posted by: James Jones | September 21, 2007 09:32 PM
Your reading of my posts is always highly selective. You select out the points that help you hope will make some pre-determined case and ignore the rest as inconvenient truths.
But again that's OK - we have reached a point of clarity on the question that is not the point of this thread and that is sufficient.
But again you duck the question, which as it happens, is the point on this thread.
What do you think candidates for President, who would become Commander in Chief, should do when the country's leading newspaper falsley accuses an American General of betraying his country as he leads the troops in battle.
(What) Do you think that they should say about the ad?
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 08:20 AM
Grouch,
I speak clearly, plainly and consistently. The reason you have difficulty following the logic is that you do not comprehend the principles.
You think of yourself as a liberal because it pleases you to think of yourself as a liberal. It has never occured to you that liberty lies at the heart of liberalism. You percieve, you have never thought seriously about it, that equality is the core of liberalism.
For you the world is divided between liberals (who are good) and conservatives (who are evil). It's a nice comfortable world you concoct for yourself but, it does not comport with reality. That's a problem.
Now I come along with views that dissent yours. From your perspective then my views must be illiberal (e.g., immoral, uneducated, stupid, bigoted, ad infinitum).
Actually I'm making the point that the term "liberal" has been hijacked by leftists who actually have no genuine interest in liberty. The primary concern of the leftist is not liberty; it is equality. And equality, so the thinkinggoes, is achieved through security offered by Big Government. So liberty becomes subservient to security for the leftist.
So when I point out to you that what American conservatives seek to conserve is in fact liberal ideals, you assume that I'm trying to switch sides and stand of the side of angels - along with you. That's not the case. You and I agree on almost nothing and I am completely untoubled by the fact.
What you think of as my attempt to change sides is actually an attempt to educate a man who thinks in platitudes.
Old Grouch-
Why do you insist on repeating the "Jones thinks he's a liberal" meme on every thread?
His initial post was more than self explanatory and after repeated clarifications you still persist.
Pretty hypocritical behavior for a retired teacher, and self appointed moderator for accountability on juvenile postings.
Or is it?
Posted by Get Real on September 22, 2007 12:29 PMI tell ya, words are slippery things. A liberal dose of salt, a liberal interpretation, a liberal attitude and on and on and....
Until we completely lose freedom to buy and pay for our speech, leave the folks alone. Let them by addressed by everyone, don`t make it a requirement that certain people respond to them.
Move on and the swift boaters get it from the American people, we do not need meaningless comments from politicians and nutty resolutions on this stuff.
This is all form over function. All show and no substance.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 12:54 PMGet Real: You ask OG: "Old Grouch-
"Why do you insist on repeating the "Jones thinks he's a liberal" meme on every thread?"
Because OG is a f a a a r r r leftist who considers himself a centrist in liberal thought. Unfortunately, he can't recognize objective liberal thought because his objectivity is skewed so far to the left his binoculars can't see far enough to determine center.
Posted by on September 22, 2007 01:14 PMSharon B,
At some point you will come to realize that MoveOn's right to purchase and the Times' right to sell space disgusting ads is not the point.
The point is that the add is disgusting and marks a departure from the underlying assumption that Americans who serve in the military do so with integrity and their service should be honored.
MoveOn debases the political discourse which would not be of particluar concern (there is a lot of debased discourse) except for the fact that the Democrat contenders for Commander-in-Chief are afraid to speak up on the behalf of a maligned General.
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 01:33 PMGet Real
Thanks.
Keeping these guys on topic sometimes feels like trying to hold back the tide with a broom.
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 01:37 PMJames Jones
You won't find Democratic contenders speaking out against actions of the type employed by MoveOn.org. Remember, Obama was in favor of a resolution contemning the attack on the General and in the manner it was implemented. However, he backed away from the final version when MoveOn was actually named in the resolution.
True liberal thought and political discourse in this country has been slowly devoured by a more rigid, almost militant, form of "Progressive thought." The hallmarks of original liberalism consisting of objectivity, fairness to all across the board, tolerance and advancement of human rights has been replaced by intolerance of any conflicting ideas and desired suppression of any activities or institutions not fitting within their ideological framework.
A major factor in the almost phenomenal growth of this new idealogical stance has been to counteract the hijacking of the Republicans by the "neocons" who demonstrate the same intolerance and authoritarian rule over those not buying into their ideological framework.
Democratic contenders can't afford to alienate a major chunk of the Democratic electorate by condemning an icon of that new Progressive left ideology.
You see a similar dancing around in the Republican contenders as they have to balance some of the expectations of the neocon element remaining (i.e., the American Taliban; or, Evangelical political movement exemplified by Focus on the Family, etc.), and wooing back the disenfranchised Republican electorate who became fed up and disgusted with the uncontrolled pork spending and corruption which displaced the original party values.
The right, or conservatives, made the first general move to a more militant, "my way or the highway" ideology; and, the left, or liberals, followed suit by modifying their ideology to a more rigid and militant stance to counteract the right.
Hillary Clinton was right when she spoke of the "vast right wing conspiracy"; partially. She didn't speak of the "vast left wing conspiracy" that also exists in American political society. The right wing conspiracy has the upper hand for now, so it's considered the evil element. The left wing conspiracy really isn't considered a conspiracy as it is just the rallying focal point of the under trodden and those not in power -- but, it's just as real as the right's; and will evolve to be considered evil once the left is in power; and the right wing will no longer be a conspiracy, but the voice of the under trodden and abused.
As the schism between traditional liberal and conservative thought has grown, the country as a whole is slowly spiraling into the sewer.
Posted by mongoose on September 22, 2007 02:25 PMMongoose
I think Hillary was wrong about the right-wing conspiracy. There was no great appetite to replace Clinton with Gore prior to a presidential campaign. I think President Clinton was the author of his problems.
Likewise, I don't see a left-wing conspiracy. There are interest groups that combine to push agendas but that's only natural in a two-party state. Whatever we might think of MoveOn's tactics, they certainly are not clandestine.
The point here is that there should be times when partisan interests are set aside for the national welfare. It has always been vital that the military operate as a professional, non-partisan organization that is directed by civilian leaders.
We may fight like cats and dogs over political issues, but we ought to be able to come together to offer support and respect to the military regardless of which party controls the White House.
Moveon's charge is that the military leadership has become politicized is false, dangerous and should be roundly rejected irrespective of political views.
I also don't agree that the US is heading for the sewer. I think we are the mankind's bets hope.
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 03:42 PMJJ: "I think we are the mankind's bets."
Based on what fantasies?
Posted by on September 22, 2007 03:53 PMJames Jones
You missed my attempt at sarcasm. Whenever you have "...interest groups that combine to push agendas..." the opposition screams conspiracy. Meanwhile, their own combining of forces is just a friendly coalition to offset the evil conspiracy of the other side. The conspiracy charge against the other side is easy to make and helps justify your own sides coalition to advocate your positions and seek to gain and hold power.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whatever we might think of MoveOn's tactics, they certainly are not clandestine."
Almost by definition their action was clandestine -- or did I miss their public announcement that they intended to impugn the integrity of, and smear the name of the General ahead of time? Their ad was a sneak attack - clandestine. A non clandestine effort would have been to wait until after the testimony any take to task, challenge the accuracy and or veracity of the report -- not smear and impugn before the fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's all a game of semantics -- it's a nefarious, duplicitous and myopic conspiracy if it's agin ya; a self righteous, justice seeking coalition if it's for ya!
Mongoose,
Full page ads in the NY Times is not the best way to keep your intentions secret.
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 04:45 PMThe ad was the clandestine, or covert attack -- a sneak attack not revealed or disclosed before execution.
Posted by mongoose on September 22, 2007 04:51 PMJJ: Are you really that dense or didn't you read what mongose posted...duh
Posted by on September 22, 2007 04:53 PMJones: "The point is that the add is disgusting and marks a departure from the underlying assumption that Americans who serve in the military do so with integrity and their service should be honored."
Although Jones is typically vague, the inference seems to be that we should not question our military. The fact is that questioning our military is probably more important than questioning other aspects of the government because of its power. There are many countries in which people can't or are afraid to question their military. Fortunately, America is not one of them. "You can trust me, I'm from the military" is no more valid than "you can trust me, I'm from the government". Jones can't seem to get used to the fact that the military is composed of human beings, human beings with a great deal of power at their disposal.
Whose view do you prefer, Jones' view that we should assume they are doing the right thing, or Eisenhower's:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Posted by Truth on September 22, 2007 05:21 PMNo Truth, I do not think, and have not said, that we should not question what the military tells. I do think, and have said, that the military should be falsley accused of betrayal.
Not a very fine distinction.
But then, Truth, you and I have already agreed that the ad (not the testimony) was inapproprigte so your post is irrelavant and so one more time::
But again you duck the question, which as it happens, is the point on this thread.
What do you think candidates for President, who would become Commander in Chief, should do when the country's leading newspaper falsley accuses an American General of betraying his country as he leads the troops in battle.
(What) Do you think that they should say about the ad?
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 08:20 AM
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 10:57 AM
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 05:48 PMJJ: You asked: "What do you think candidates for President, who would become Commander in Chief, should do when the country's leading newspaper falsley accuses an American General of betraying his country as he leads the troops in battle."
3 points:
1. The New York Times didn't attack the General; your heroes at MoveOn did the preemptive sneak attack.
2. Mongoose told you why the Democrats couldn't alienate a bunch of loyal lapdogs by denouncing a hero icon.
3. Un Truth will keep dancing around giving a direct answer. He can be challenged on direct, but can skirt challenge by waxing philosophical.
Posted by on September 22, 2007 06:01 PMMongoose et al
I did read the post and you do not understand what is meant by clandestine. Clandestine acitvity is not intended to be a surprise, it is intended not to be known ( a secret).
Taking out an ad in the newspaper really puts a damper on clandestine activity.
The ad itself was not a secret. It was known to the many people who worked on it and the contents were reported in the press prior to publication. So the ad was neither clandestine nor secretive.
You must be university students - or perhaps professors?
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 06:14 PMJJ: Oh great Wizard of Izz...the smear campaign against Petreaus was conceived and nurtured as a CLANDESTINE operation until the attack was initiated. What other dirty little sneaky smears and attacks are currently being developed on a CLANDESTINE level or your little heroes, MoveON?
You are a pathetic excuse for a logician, JJ. As much as I disagree with the far leftest, Old Crotch, he sure his your narrow minded, fact avoidance and slippery parsing of words down pat -- you're a fraud.
And the NYT did attack -- your heroes at MoveOn did.
Posted by on September 22, 2007 06:36 PMWell, if I ever do something with a group, I will wear a t-shirt saying '"involved in clandestine (secret) (covert) activity".
6:36 Anon, I hate to write this, but that is not jj`s little heroes, MoveOn or NYT.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 07:42 PMI see. It was clandestine until it wasn't.
Sort of like virgins.
How about that Sharon B.?
Posted by James Jones on September 22, 2007 07:49 PMJJ: They're virgins until "attacked"; then they're not. You're catching on to adult thought patterns. Keep working on it..Old Crotch will be proud of you.
Posted by on September 22, 2007 07:58 PMJJ, there are semi-virgins.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 22, 2007 09:59 PMAmerican troops in Iraq are in a “rage” over Hillary Clinton and other Democrats’ failure to condemn the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus “General Betray Us.”
That’s the word from Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In an interview with talk radio host Steve Malzberg, King said what struck him most about the troops in Iraq was how closely they are following politics in the U.S., and how angry they are over the Democrats’ reaction to the MoveOn.org ad.
King said he had lunch with several female soldiers at a base in Iraq and they were “furious at the Democrats for not denouncing the ad and for what was said about General Petraeus.
“This has been noticed by the troops,” King told Malzberg.
“They specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton, being angry at her, and the Democrats in general for not denouncing MoveOn.org. It went beyond a political anger — it was a rage.”
The MoveOn.org ad — which appeared in the New York Times — charged Petraeus with “cooking the books for the White House” when he delivered his Iraq report on Sept. 10.
“To imply that Petraeus is a liar — MoveOn called him a traitor!” said King. “I was struck by the intensity of the anger from these people.”
King said some of the soldiers who had previously supported Clinton’s presidential bid no longer did.
Posted by on September 23, 2007 12:14 PMThe New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.
In a column published Sunday entitled, "Betraying Its Own Best Interests," Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote that after reviewing the Times' policies regarding the sale and content of advertisements and conducting his own investigation of the matter, "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."
According to the column, MoveOn.org purchased the ad at a "standby" rate of $64,575 when it should have been charged $142,083. To receive standby rates, advertisers cannot be guaranteed a date when their ads will run, but the sales representative who sold the ad to MoveOn.org told the organization that the ad would run on Monday, Sept. 10—the day that Petraeus was to appear before Congress.
Posted by on September 23, 2007 12:23 PMHoyt said the content of the ad—a full-page advertisement that questioned Petraeus' truthfulness with the headline "Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us?" violated Times advertising policy.
"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,'" Hoyt wrote. He wrote that the Times director of advertising acceptability, Steph Jespersen, told him that while he did think the language of the Petraeus ad 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."
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., was not aware of the MoveOn.org ad until it appeared in the paper, Hoyt wrote.
"If we're going to err, its better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people," Sulzberger told Hoyt.
Hoyt wrote in the column that he disagrees with the decisions made by the Times employees responsible for the ad being published.
"For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if its abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues," Hoyt wrote. "For the Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen's shoes, I'd have demanded changes to eliminate Betray Us, a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
For James Jones and other MoveOn faithful, the article above can be read in it's original form at:
Posted by on September 23, 2007 12:54 PMOh gosh oh golly! There was an ad! In a newspaper! Don't look over there! Look over here!
Joke Jones is as transparent as glass. Obfuscation and distraction are his weapons of choice.
Posted by Charles B. on September 23, 2007 06:42 PM