Moveon.org apologizes for Bush/Hitler comparison..

[a_unique_person]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Once again. What has the Simon Wiesethal Center got to do with this? The only connection I can see here is that Hitler was mentioned, and that the SWC must own his copyright in perpetuity or something. You cannot mention hitler without their OK or paying a royalty.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

After looking at the information, I think that the issue has been overblown. There is a valid point about moveon posting the message after a review, but I am willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Having said that, it seems to me that your definition of "censor" must be a bit different than mine. He criticized their action and gave his opinion on it. Moveon was (and is) quite free to continue posting the ad if they want to -- I don't see where the Center has censored anything.

As far as who asked for his/their opinion, can't the same question be asked about your opinion of the Center? "Who asked [you], and what right do [you] have to censor free speech. . . "?

You are not censoring him through your criticism of his opinion than he is censoring moveon through his.

N/A

 

[Skeptic]

So who asked him

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that a jew shouldn't speak unless spoken to. A jew expressing an opinion BY HIMSELF WITHOUT BEING ASKED??? Shocking. Those "hebes" REALLY don't know their place anymore, do they, AUP?

and what right does he have to censor free speech

He hasn't "censored" anybody. He was simply excercising HIS right to free speech--just like moveon.com did-- and expressed his opinion that these ads are disgusting.

Of course, for you, a jew expressing an opinion against something is the same thing as "jewish censorship"--because, God forbid, it might cause some reaction AGAINST that issue based merely on the word of a jew! And we can't have that, can we? This is proof of the "evil jewish control of the world"...

For you, "jewish cenorship" means "a jew using his free speech to protest against something"--a right that everybody else (except the jews) takes for granted. You don't really think jews have the right to free speech or to speak for themselves unless asked.

At MOST, you graciously "allow" the jews to have the right to speak... provided that their free speech does not result in any change whatsoever, because any such change is, by definition, "censorship". If a web site had compared Bush to a KKK grand dragon and blacks protested and made the web site drop the ad as being in poor taste, this is a "civil rights victory". But if jews use their free speech to protest the comparing of Bush to Hitler and the web site involved agrees the ad was in poor taste, THAT is "censorship of free speech" and proof of the "jewish control of the media"...

that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Jews have no right to speak about things that "have nothing to do with attacking jews". Unlike most people, who have a right to express an opinion on any issue they wish, jews should keep quiet and not intefere with things that don't conerned them directly--that is, anything that isn't concerned with "attacking jews". Nobody is arranging a progrom at the moment? Then those annoying jews should just shut the hell up. As you say, who asked THEM?

And, of course, jews should ESPECIALLY stop expressing their unwanted opinions on such heavy issues of the day like like American presidential elections; whatever makes them think it's any of THEIR business, just because they are American citizens? They should leave such issues to you--who commented extensively on Bush and the American elections in this forum--and other gentiles to discuss. Of course, you are an Australian and don't have any direct say in it... but at least you're not a jew.

And, for the record, you of course completely missed the REAL reason for the protest against the ads. The reason was that to use Hitler to attack Bush minimizes Hitler's crimes, by falsely claiming that they are comparable to Bush's (alleged) misdeeds. To claim Bush "is a nazi" is to spit in the face of those victims of the nazis, who know very well that there is no comparison whatsoever between what Bush does wrong--even if all the allegations against him are true--and what the nazis did.

So, it IS, quite obviously, something that DOES concern the jews. So, Mr. AUP, Sir, DO us jews have your permission to talk about it? Let me know; I don't want to stick my (long) nose into things that don't concern me by daring to have an opinion about non-jewish matters, your honor, Sir.

 

[Lurker]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.


Lurker

 

[Skeptic]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.

Two reasons:

1). First of all, the comparison in this ad is not to any old bad guy, but to Mr. H himself--which automatically creates a big stirr every time he's mentioned in ANY context. Hitler is a rating magnet; do you think it's a coincidence half of the History channel's stuff is about him? (The "H" in their channel's name should really be something else).

2). The democrats were smart enough not to draw attention to those ads, since doing so simply gives them far more exposure than they would otherwise get. Like in this case: at least 100 times as many people now saw these "Bush is Hitler" ads than would have otherwise. If only 2% of them agree with it, it's twice as many sympathetic viewes than the ad got before.

I agree that the protest of this silly ad was overhyped, despite the fact that it WAS obviously insulting to both Bush and Hitler's victims. But what the hell do I know... I'm just a jew, and, as AUP said, I really shouldn't express my opinion about stuff that doesn't concern me. After all, who asks me?

 

[Lurker]

1). First of all, the comparison in this ad is not to any old bad guy, but to Mr. H himself--which automatically creates a big stirr every time he's mentioned in ANY context. Hitler is a rating magnet; do you think it's a coincidence half of the History channel's stuff is about him? (The "H" in their channel's name should really be something else).

I guess Hitler's fate is to always be the modern Satan. Can't get any worse than Hitler, right?

All the same, I don't think it fair to let the RNC off the hook for doing something similar. Did Hannity complain about those ads like he about the Moveon website? I didn't think so.

Lurker

 

[Crossbow]

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

moveon apologizes

Agreed, they should have apologized and I hope they never do such a thing again.

I have no problem, or anyone else, being critical of the President, but they should stick to the facts and avoid inflammatory personalizations.

Ugh!

 

[NoZed Avenger]

- Deleted Double Post -


Mods, feel free to delete/remove/spindle/mutilate.


N/A

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.

I hadn't heard of it. I think that the tv ads -- being produced and purposefully aired directly by the organization -- is worse and should be roundly condemned.

N/A

 

[Cain]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.


Lurker

Max Cleland is also a triple amputee Vietnam veteran portrayed as unwlling to defend America.

 

[a_unique_person]

So who asked him

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that a jew shouldn't speak unless spoken to. A jew expressing an opinion BY HIMSELF WITHOUT BEING ASKED??? Shocking. Those "hebes" REALLY don't know their place anymore, do they, AUP?

I couldn't give a damm how many people who happen to be Jews criticise the ads. What the hell has it to do with representatives of Jewish organisations, such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre? This is exactly the type of nonsense that Finkelstein was complaining about.

and what right does he have to censor free speech

He hasn't "censored" anybody. He was simply excercising HIS right to free speech--just like moveon.com did-- and expressed his opinion that these ads are disgusting.

Of course, for you, a jew expressing an opinion against something is the same thing as "jewish censorship"--because, God forbid, it might cause some reaction AGAINST that issue based merely on the word of a jew! And we can't have that, can we? This is proof of the "evil jewish control of the world"...

For you, "jewish cenorship" means "a jew using his free speech to protest against something"--a right that everybody else (except the jews) takes for granted. You don't really think jews have the right to free speech or to speak for themselves unless asked.

At MOST, you graciously "allow" the jews to have the right to speak... provided that their free speech does not result in any change whatsoever, because any such change is, by definition, "censorship". If a web site had compared Bush to a KKK grand dragon and blacks protested and made the web site drop the ad as being in poor taste, this is a "civil rights victory". But if jews use their free speech to protest the comparing of Bush to Hitler and the web site involved agrees the ad was in poor taste, THAT is "censorship of free speech" and proof of the "jewish control of the media"...

that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Jews have no right to speak about things that "have nothing to do with attacking jews". Unlike most people, who have a right to express an opinion on any issue they wish, jews should keep quiet and not intefere with things that don't conerned them directly--that is, anything that isn't concerned with "attacking jews". Nobody is arranging a progrom at the moment? Then those annoying jews should just shut the hell up. As you say, who asked THEM?

And, of course, jews should ESPECIALLY stop expressing their unwanted opinions on such heavy issues of the day like like American presidential elections; whatever makes them think it's any of THEIR business, just because they are American citizens? They should leave such issues to you--who commented extensively on Bush and the American elections in this forum--and other gentiles to discuss. Of course, you are an Australian and don't have any direct say in it... but at least you're not a jew.

And, for the record, you of course completely missed the REAL reason for the protest against the ads. The reason was that to use Hitler to attack Bush minimizes Hitler's crimes, by falsely claiming that they are comparable to Bush's (alleged) misdeeds. To claim Bush "is a nazi" is to spit in the face of those victims of the nazis, who know very well that there is no comparison whatsoever between what Bush does wrong--even if all the allegations against him are true--and what the nazis did.

Like I said, do these Jewish organisations own the copyright to Hitler? Should we be asking permission to use his name in threads on this board?

So, it IS, quite obviously, something that DOES concern the jews. So, Mr. AUP, Sir, DO us jews have your permission to talk about it? Let me know; I don't want to stick my (long) nose into things that don't concern me by daring to have an opinion about non-jewish matters, your honor, Sir.

I don't give a damm what jews say, it is the interference of Jewish organisations into matters that have nothing to do with their 'propietorship' of Hitler. Finkelstein has been shown to be right again.