• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moveon.org apologizes for Bush/Hitler comparison..

BTox said:
They oughta move on, alright, after this gaffe. I'd swear they have some members posting here...

moveon apologizes
Click to expand...

This is what pisses me off the most about Bush's opposition is that they don't try to attack him on the issues but they pull off sophomoric stunts like this in an attempt to make themselves look better. This kinds of "hahaha I make video of Bush's speeches out of context to make him look like Hitler!" is not helping anyone and reinforces the other extreme's point of view.
 
In fairness to MoveOn.org, with whom I don't agree on many things, the ads in question were not made by them; they were part of a contest asking the general public to create anti-Bush ads and were posted as contest entries.

They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.
 
They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.
Click to expand...

Like pyschics use the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer.

A webmaster had to upload that himself. "Slipped by" my @$$.
 
Cleon said:
In fairness to MoveOn.org, with whom I don't agree on many things, the ads in question were not made by them; they were part of a contest asking the general public to create anti-Bush ads and were posted as contest entries.

They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.
Click to expand...

Well considering they picked their judges for the ads I'd have to say I'm still in doubt. I mean Al Franken, Michael Moore and James Carville aren't exactly known for their subtlety
 
Not until the middle of the article do you get some idea of what happened:

Neither of the two ads was ever aired on TV and by Monday had been removed from the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Web site (www.bushin30seconds.org) set up by the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.

The head of the Voter Fund, Wes Boyd, said his group posted more than 1,500 entries in all submitted by "ordinary Americans" and that the two Hitler spots "slipped through our screening process."

"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund," Boyd's statement said. "We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."

He accused Republican leaders of a "maliciously misleading" attempt to cast the two Hitler ads as sponsored by his group.
Click to expand...

The posts here suggest that Moveon created and ran the ads, then pulled them after opposition. In fact they took submissions and put these two ads up in addition to 1500 others on their website. MoveOn the organization never endorsed the ads.
 
Cain said:
Not until the middle of the article do you get some idea of what happened:

Neither of the two ads was ever aired on TV and by Monday had been removed from the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Web site (www.bushin30seconds.org) set up by the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.
Click to expand...

That's all well known. So what? It's hardly surprising that when you tout a panel of extremist judges, you get extremist entries like this one.



The posts here suggest that Moveon created and ran the ads, then pulled them after opposition. In fact they took submissions and put these two ads up in addition to 1500 others on their website. MoveOn the organization never endorsed the ads.
Click to expand...

Who says they produced it or aired it? Which "posts here"? By uploading to their website they have endorsed their critical approval of it, in my opinion. Would they have allowed entries that used racist language or pornography? I mean, since it's all Constitutionally protected material, there should be no difference, right? It's all about free speech, right?

The obvious answer is that they would not have allowed otherwise obscene material in the entries, so entries that were posted have passed some kind of muster, which implies artistic endorsement. That, and the "end justifies the means" (or rather, the "agenda justifies the slander") attitude shown by liars like Moore and Carville makes it very easy for them to pick and choose which obscenities they like.
 
He accused Republican leaders of a "maliciously misleading" attempt to cast the two Hitler ads as sponsored by his group.


Nevertheless, the leaders of three major Jewish groups -- the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- roundly criticized MoveOn for placing the Hitler ads on the Internet.


They and Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie all seized on MoveOn.org's own pledge in the ground rules for its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest not to "post anything that would be in inappropriate for television."


"To compare the president of the United States, his fight against al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), with the politics of Hitler is ... shameful, it is beyond the pale, and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center
Click to expand...

So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?
 
The website's biggest contributor, George Soros, stated that he views Bush like Hitler. Very lame and desperate, trying to retract the message now.
 
That's all well known. So what? It's hardly surprising that when you tout a panel of extremist judges, you get extremist entries like this one.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?

Who says they produced it or aired it? Which "posts here"?
Click to expand...

Read a little closer. I said the posts "suggest" moveon.org created and ran the ads. See the first two posts (until Cleon clarified). Or look at the first half of the article.

By uploading to their website they have endorsed their critical approval of it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. If they chose these ads as the winners, then sure, you can say they endorsed them.

The obvious answer is that they would not have allowed otherwise obscene material in the entries, so entries that were posted have passed some kind of muster, which implies artistic endorsement.
Click to expand...

Yes, they passed a preliminary screening, and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?
 
Cain said:


Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?


Yes, they passed a preliminary screening, and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?
Click to expand...

If the judges are not screening the ads then contestants should sue for improper contest rules. Why have judges or contestants if all entries are not to be judged equally and fairly before a winner is picked?
 
Cain said:


Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?
Click to expand...

Well, they are the judges. Do the math.



Read a little closer. I said the posts "suggest" moveon.org created and ran the ads. See the first two posts (until Cleon clarified). Or look at the first half of the article.
Click to expand...

You read closer, hotshot. I said show me where. I see no such example.

Well, I disagree. If they chose these ads as the winners, then sure, you can say they endorsed them.
Click to expand...

Not on point, Cain. I said, would they have allowed racist or pornographic ENTRIES, not winners. You can disagree all you like. Hell, I'm waiting for you to disagree with gravity.

Yes, they passed a preliminary screening...
Click to expand...

BINGO! Half a page later and the point is finally addressed.

...and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?
Click to expand...

If I were running the website, I'd make sure it was someone whose judgment I trusted... wouldn't you?
 
If the judges are not screening the ads then contestants should sue for improper contest rules. Why have judges or contestants if all entries are not to be judged equally and fairly before a winner is picked?
Click to expand...


Jocko said:


Well, they are the judges. Do the math.
Click to expand...


What do you mean "Do the math"? Also that's the stupidest expression in the english language. Well, I was doing a term paper while studying for French and, oh, you do the math.

They are the judges. Celebrity judges. They're not going to view over one-thousand different spots. The voters for the Academy don't view every single feature film that was released to a theaters for a paying audience (although that's the only criteria, theoretically, for winning an Oscar).


You read closer, hotshot. I said show me where. I see no such example.
Click to expand...


I cited three instances, smart guy.

Not on point, Cain. I said, would they have allowed racist or pornographic ENTRIES, not winners. You can disagree all you like. Hell, I'm waiting for you to disagree with gravity.


BINGO! Half a page later and the point is finally addressed.
Click to expand...

Are you bloody mad? How do you think an initial screening process works. They give lackeys a general outline. If the ad uses the word "f*ck", don't include it. If it says something racist or reveals bare breasts, don't add it to the pool.


If I were running the website, I'd make sure it was someone whose judgment I trusted... wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that does not guarantee that person will never mess up. CNN posted obituaries for people who were alive at the time. Cheney, Reagan, Bob Hope.

View the ads that are up right now. Presumably, those are the ones the celebrities will judge. After they pick one, and air it on television, you can correctly criticize it as being endorsed and supported by MoveOn.org/
 
I have not had a chance to read the links -- just fill me in:

Was the apology to Hitler for linking him with Bush?


N/A

(Just my guess based on past releases from the site)
 
The thing is, it had to be viewed by someone at moveon.org before it was uploaded to the website. Therefore someone there approved of it. It was a ploy to get and draw attention to their website, which it did. Notice with all those submissions, no porn seemed to "slip through", which means they were paying attention.
 
Demigorgon said:
The thing is, it had to be viewed by someone at moveon.org before it was uploaded to the website. Therefore someone there approved of it. It was a ploy to get and draw attention to their website, which it did. Notice with all those submissions, no porn seemed to "slip through", which means they were paying attention.
Click to expand...

Try telling Cain that. He's built an elaborate palace of excuses out of conjecture and ridiculous assumptions.

If they hosted the file, they're responsible. Period. Judging from the company they keep, they ought to acknowledge it and be proud of it. I mean, it's no secret that Carville, Moore and Franken think Bush is satan. I think it ought to have been the winner since it so accurately sums up their collective feelings.
 
Try telling Cain that. He's built an elaborate palace of excuses out of conjecture and ridiculous assumptions.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Two videos out of over 1500 made it onto their site. They apologized. Which of the ten or fifteen finalists do you find objectionable?

At the yearly conservative convention. I forget what it's called, the AIPC, or something. Cheney's attended twice, it's where Coulter said we need to execute John Walker Lindh in order to "physically intimidate liberals by making them realize they can be killed too." During the Clinton years you could purchase all kinds of clever bumperstickers saying things like "Where's Oswald when you need him" or suggestions that Hillary C. was a lesbian.

If they hosted the file, they're responsible. Period. Judging from the company they keep, they ought to acknowledge it and be proud of it. I mean, it's no secret that Carville, Moore and Franken think Bush is satan. I think it ought to have been the winner since it so accurately sums up their collective feelings.
Click to expand...

Again, they apologized. I don't believe there's anything in FCC rules outlawing comparisons between Bush and Hitler. The ad could, theoretically, run. If it contained pornography or one of the banned words, then it could not. It's reasonable to assume that underlyings

Quote from the Fox article linked above:

MoveOn.org noted that those ads were voted down by the group's members and the public, who submitted nearly 3 million critiques while choosing the 15 finalist entries.

"We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process," the statement said. "In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom