Senate votes 72-25 to condemn MoveOn.org ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
JuanCarlos said:
In at least some of those cases, supporters of that far-left activist group might actually be a significant portion of their constituents. At which point they'd be voting for those they represent.
Click to expand...
Least we forget, the constituents of the Senate are the States themselves, not the people. It is the House wherein the people have direct representatives (constituents).

At least, that was the original idea behind the bicameral approach to the Legislature. The only thing the 17th amendment was supposed to do, was to change how Senators were elected, not whom they were supposed to represent.
 
The ad was right on. The Bush Admin is cherry picking evidence of a reduction in violence. Here is a copy of the add with references https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
Furthermore they couldn't even meet the benchmarks that they set.

I don't consider myself left wing and I am a member of MoveOn. I'm also against illegal immigration, own a gun, go to church and I hate the ACLU. Move on is mainstream.
 
Move on is mainstream.
Click to expand...

For the folks in it. So is smoking crack for the folks who do.

WAs Rule of Life 32(i)b(2):

Mainstream is defined as a series of beliefs held by any subset of a population, regardless of size, that may or may not conform with actual reality, and it is immaterial whether or not said beliefs do in fact conform with reality, since as long as the subset holds the beliefs, they are mainstream within that subset. Thus, if 100 folks stand in a room and screech that the moon is made of green cheese, then that belief is mainstream within that group.

WildtimetomoveonAlaska TM
 
Least we forget, the constituents of the Senate are the States themselves, not the people. It is the House wherein the people have direct representatives (constituents).

At least, that was the original idea behind the bicameral approach to the Legislature. The only thing the 17th amendment was supposed to do, was to change how Senators were elected, not whom they were supposed to represent.
Click to expand...
Amazingly enough I remember learning that in high school but since little time was ever spent on it I guess it never clicked.

I guess for me it comes down to the question of why the Senate even exists? Why do the governments of the states, rather than the people, get representation in the first place? Shouldn't the people come first? Not trying to be a jackass, I'm really trying to wrap my head around how things are and how they were supposed to be.

Maybe it's just late but I seem to be missing something here. :p
 
I guess for me it comes down to the question of why the Senate even exists? Why do the governments of the states, rather than the people, get representation in the first place? Shouldn't the people come first? Not trying to be a jackass, I'm really trying to wrap my head around how things are and how they were supposed to be.

Maybe it's just late but I seem to be missing something here.
Click to expand...

WOW....just....wow.
 
Last edited:
Not trying to be a jackass, I'm really trying to wrap my head around how things are and how they were supposed to be.
Click to expand...

See my point? I grasp the basics, I'm trying to understand the differences because things have changed just a smidgen in two hundred plus fraking years.

I don't owe you or anyone a damn thing, tyvm. My beliefs and positions - which are all equally as valid as yours, I might add - are not conditional on my understanding of the theory of a bicameral legislature.
 
Last edited:
For the folks in it. So is smoking crack for the folks who do.
Click to expand...

WildAlaska, If ignoring that the rules have changed in how violence is calculated in Iraq is mainstream then I will gladly be left-wing.

George Bush had the gall to say that the ad was against the troops. There he goes playing politics with the troops again.

Barack Obama stated that he did not vote on it in protest because the whole idea of the vote was to score cheap political points.
 
All I ask is that the left, and especially MoveOn, keep doing and saying just what they are now. It's working well and will have the effect these tactics always do.

Thank you!!
 
So... a loony fringe group pays for a full page loony fringe ad. So... what? I don't see what the fuss is here. It was tasteless and disgusting. Whatever.

The best thing you can do for tasteless and disgusting people is to give them even more facetime. Bet you anything that MoveOn.org's website traffic jumped eleventy billion percent this week.

The people who hate MoveOn are gonna hate MoveOn. The people who like MoveOn are gonna love MoveOn even more now for having the cajones to pull this prank off. As in,

"wow, they got to piss off a lotta Republicans? I hate republicans. Awesome. I'm gonna write another check for one very fat donation."
 
Agree or disagree with the ad, we all have the right to free speech. This ad is free speech regarding an individual in the public domain. This is protected speech.

To waste your money and mine, voting to condemn a form of free speech is alarming at best and heinous at worse. It's disgusting that Mr. Bush is now using the vote results for political fodder. If I'm not mistaken, those men and women serving in Iraq are there to protect our way of life. Our freedom of speech included.

I applaud those who refused to vote and those who refused to condemn the ad. I'm ashamed of the rest.

As gun owners, I would think all of us would be especially aware of rights lost and those in danger of being lost.
 
Seems you don't understand the 1st amendment. Free speech means that you won't be prosecuted for it. Neither MoveOn or the New York times was fined, arrested, censored, or prosecuted. But to exercise a right is also to take responsibility for the consequences. The consequences in this case are public scorn. Say something ignorant, expect to have it called ignorant. Say something disgusting and irresponsible, expect it to be called disgusting and irresponsible.

In this speech was so egregiously disgusting and irresponsible that it was public proclaimed to be by the Senate. Actions have consequences. Big enough to say the words then be big enough to take the consequences. This looks like a 'jump the shark' event for MoveOn. This will likely be their defining event.
 
The ad was right on. The Bush Admin is cherry picking evidence of a reduction in violence. Here is a copy of the add with references https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
Furthermore they couldn't even meet the benchmarks that they set.

I don't consider myself left wing and I am a member of MoveOn. I'm also against illegal immigration, own a gun, go to church and I hate the ACLU. Move on is mainstream.
Click to expand...

So the ad was right on? You mean that it's OK to slander a General of the military? That ad was predetermined to be out in press before he even spoke his position and they considered what he had to say. Freedom of speech is one thing, but abusing it by slandering another individual is open game for the assertion.

I don't need references from from a sight that holds no credibility to begin with.

I think you need to further research the organization that you support. First off, it's MAJOR financier is George Soros. He's about to BUY the presidency. He is bound and determined to take away every gun in this nation, turn our country into a pure socialist society, rather a Secular Progressive society, welcome illegal aliens, and strip the Constitution from being the backbone of our nation.

I actually am very surprised that his name isn't mentioned in threads on this forum very often. He's FAR worse than anybody in office right now, and that includes the Hillbama duo. They're dangerous as well, but they would only be the puppets. To even think that one can be a member of MoveOn and not see the underlying damage this organization is and will do is extremely disturbing to me.

As gun owners, I would think all of us would be especially aware of rights lost and those in danger of being lost.
Click to expand...

I think you said it best, but you also need to actually listen to what YOU said and research the very organization that wants to strip your natural born rights...
 
Seems you don't understand the 1st amendment. Free speech means that you won't be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

Clearly you missed the point Bruxley. The issue at hand is that the Senate is voting if an advertisement should be condemned or not. I would think that in this country, if the form of speech is legal (which clearly this is) the Senate should not be wasting time and money to vote if an advertisement should be condemned, disgusting or not.

The point is Bruxley, that the Senate would be better served spending their energy on the matters that actually effect this country and waste their time condemning free speech. The Senate's condemnation doesn't make the advertisement any more or less disgusting does it?
 
I think you said it best, but you also need to actually listen to what YOU said and research the very organization that wants to strip your natural born rights...
Click to expand...

I don't actually support MoveOn.Org and was offended by their ad. I do believe in their right to publish their opinion and feel that the Senate's jesture slipped into an area that was beyond their realm.
 
Senate resolutions are fairly common. There are 3 types. This one would be a Simple Resolution verses a Joint or Concurrent Resolution.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/leg_laws_acts.htm

Look, it's not binding, has no weight and has no force of law whatsoever. The weight in the matter is in the hijacking by the far left of the Democrat party. Democrat leadership is aligned with the STATED political goals of OBL and Democrat constituents are very much NOT.

The base of this far left group has bought into things from misrepresentations to outright LIES. 'Who cares if it's true-I BELIEVE IT' is what the far left survives on. Some examples:

-Bush STOLE the 2000 election and/or the Supreme Court SELECTED him to be President. This is flat untrue but the emotions of the day were played on and the slogan was a hit so it was repeated and repeated till it was excepted as fact by those that didn't like the outcome and were done looking at the facts that unfolded.

-Bush lied about WMDs. Misleading. Bush, Clinton (both of them), Biden, Britain, France, Germany, the UN were WRONG. If you believe something is true and say it are you LYING or MISTAKEN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

-America's involvement in Iraq or ANYWHERE is why Islamic Fascism does what it does. A LIE. They attack Russia, Spain, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kazakhstan, and ANYWHERE that they have a grievance because they lack the ability to address their grievances in a civilized way. Hell they BURNED France for weeks.

-Bush knew about/caused 9/11. SHAMELESS LIE. Without all the impossibilities of this illustrated let's ask this, how can he cause a complex and vast conspiracy such as that would have to be AND maintaining secrecy BUT NOT able to plant some WMDs in Iraq for someone to find.

I think Dan Rather summed it up very well when he said "The evidence in these allegations may be fabricated but I still believe it's true." After it was discovered that the Bush service record documents were forged from inside CBS during the 2004 election.

There are SOOOOO many more but the whole point is this ad was the revealing of the nature of the far left. They are now 'outed' and the resolution vote tally effectively 'outed' their inside operatives.

Create a monster and it will eventually turn on you, every time. In this case the monster didn't intentionally turn on them, it was realized as a pariah and it's associates' anonymity was blown.

Again Thank You MoveOn.
 
I would think that in this country, if the form of speech is legal (which clearly this is) the Senate should not be wasting time and money to vote if an advertisement should be condemned, disgusting or not.
Click to expand...

Would it have been legal "free speech" to have put up an ad just before Clinton's impeachment saying that Clinton is the highest ranking sexual predator in the government? That he's violated U.S. law by providing technology to China? Or that he is a pathological liar who surrounded himself with drug using cronies and used intimidation and terror tactics to suppress his critics and accusers? Or that he involved us in a European war, on the wrong side, to distract us from a sexual scandal? Can we run a similar one about Hillary?

At some point, you run afoul of libel and slander laws and MoveOn is dangerously close. Those on the left are saying the ad didn't go far enough by not accusing him of treason, fraud and war crimes.

He's writing a report that he knows will be scrutinized heavily and he will have to defend, with data and information, every claim he makes. He is a professional military man and used to having reports, plans and statements scrutinized by his superior officers for over 20 years. Do you really think he'd risk his career by "cooking the books" when other facts will refute his position? I doubt it.

Back to the resolution -
Or perhaps, as has been suggested, they realize this is the position their constituents support.
Click to expand...

Fine, let's ask the people of the following states if they support the MoveOn ad and position that we should, tomorrow, cut and run so we can be out of Iraq by Oct 20.

States voting against the MoveOn condemnation:
Hawaii
Illinois (1 nay, Obama abstained)
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Washington (1 nay, Cantwell abstained)
West Virginia
(bold states are notoriously anti-gun)

Interestingly, 9 states against and 9 states "neutral" (one for and one against).
California (Boxer: Nay, Feinstein:Yea)
Connecticut
Iowa
Nevada
New Mexico
Ohio
Oregon
Vermont
Wisconsin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top