Bush in 30 seconds

Politics and religion
61

Regardless of what you think, MoveOn’s website says that they did indeed sift the ads for material that was “inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor’s reputation or goodwill.” Whether or not they actually did, or did so thoroughly, is irrelevant. We are not discussing the issue of whether the ads accurately represent MoveOn’s views. We are discussing whether it was reasonable for the RNC to conclude that MoveOn was aware of the contents of the ads that it posted, and approved of that content. According to MoveOn’s website, they were, and did.

They provided a forum for people to express their ideas. “Screening” never comes into it.

According to MoveOn, it does. This is a weird argument. It reminds me of the Black Knight scene from Monty Python’s Holy Grail.

Arthur: “Your arm’s off.”

Black Knight: “No it isn’t.”

Arthur: “What’s that, then?”

I looked at their web site, but the most explicit thing I could find about “screening” was that they wouldn’t post any ads inappropriate for TV.

They say that, also.

Their “screening”, which seems to be a term you’re really stuck on, was nothing more than them saying they’ll throw out certain types of entries.

Yes, that is the definition of “screen.” Generally, when running a contest, one screens entries before voting for a winner. It’s a practical issue, really–you don’t want to have to start the contest over from scratch if an ineligible entry happens to win. I’m not sure why anyone would assume that they planned to screen the entries after the voting. That makes no sense. Then again, neither does most of what you say.

[quote]It seems reasonable to assume that MoveOn would screen out any ads that it would not be willing to endorse before allowing people to vote on them.

People didn’t vote on them. A small, select panel of judges judged the ads.[/quote]

These judges are… llamas? Aliens? Robots? And according to the website, only the finalists are submitted to the panel of judges. The finalists were selected by public vote.

Did you even look at this site, or are you just making stuff up for fun now?

MoveOn could afford to include ads they didn’t necessarily endorse, since they knew their judges simply wouldn’t select those ads.

You seem to know a lot more about it than I do. Probably because you are pulling “facts” out of your ass.

However, this does raise an interesting point. You can’t even conceive of an organization opening up a forum for discussion without heavily censoring it. You really do belong in Bush’s America.

What discussion? Are we looking at different websites? They put up ads, visitors look at them. That’s hardly a forum for discussion. And I find it outright laughable that you are accusing me of supporting censorship. That’s so funny, it’s surreal. Don’t make me resort to visuals.

If it really did say something like BUSH KILLED 7 MILLION JEWS (I think that was the number killed… not sure about the exact statistic) then it was inappropriate for TV and should have been thrown out from the beginning.

I thought you said that they didn’t even look at the entries before the judging? So how could they throw it out, whether it said that or not? You need to keep your made-up facts straight. I also find it odd that you are arguing so fervently in the defense of material that you haven’t even seen. If the content isn’t completely irrelevant, as you say, then isn’t the fact that you haven’t even seen it somewhat problematic to your argument?

and yet, because we can’t fucking digest the evil that was the holocaust, we’re forgetting all the other things that Hitler did… and we’re seeing many of them repeated with Bush.

Absolutely! For instance, Hitler tied his shoes every day, right after he put them on… and so does George W. Bush! It’s the Holocaust all over again.

In any case, I’m not really defending MoveOn… I’m trying to puncture holes in the arguments presented here, whether the argument is of Rywill’s (reasonable) or Sones’. (ridiculous)

You need to work on your reading comprehension, since my argument is pretty much identical to Rywill’s.

I’m done here. Anaxagoras, you are either a troll or a retard. I honestly can’t tell which. Either way, it’s obvious that debating with you is pointless.

62

Way to steal my ideas, Ben.

63

No, they don’t mention concentration camps nor genocide, but one does mention the war crimes of 1945 are Bush’s forgein policy of 2003. It’s a direct equaling of the two. It’s not an analogy, it’s not a metaphor, it is a direct statement that the two (war crimes of 1945 and Bush forgein policy of 2003) are the same.

64

I’m not surprised that MoveOn.org posted such an inflamatory ad. If I had heard about the contest before the controversey, I would have bet the rent money on something like this happening. It’s the nature of a political organization like this to be inflamatory. It motivates their membership. It’s not unlike the NRA talking about “jack booted thugs.”

What really does surprise me, however, is the dogged determination you guys have in actually defending MoveOn.org in blaming the RNC for having the audacity to call attention to some of ads that MoveOn.org hosted on their site. I used to hold some of you in high regard, not that that probably means much to you. We would disagree, sure, but I could see where you were coming from and I could understand your position. But this? It’s inexplicable. If the Cato Institute ran a contest like this and there was a Dean/Stalin comparison ad like the Bush/Hitler comparison ad on MoveOn.org’s site, I would be with you arm in arm railing against Cato. But you…defend…this? Surprisingly enough, I’m at a loss for words.

65

SK for Prez 2004

66

You’ll just have to trust me. I’d just think it was funny.

67

Of course you would , as would any reasonable person with a sense of humor. The DNC, however, wouldn’t be so understanding.

68

Actually, morphing two photos can be done for free. Go back a few years, and you might’ve had to pay $60 for a decent morph tool for Windows.

Not trying to be nitpicky, just thought I’d point out a spiffy program you might not’ve heard of.

69

That’s probably true. I remember earlier in this very thread Jason was laughing about the ad that compared Daschle to Saddam Hussein.

No, wait, I’m wrong, he was pissed off about that. Never mind.

70

That’s because it was actually run, not made up by some yahoo with Photoshop.

71

Ah, Mr. Sones. So many arguments… so few good arguments.

Generally, when running a contest, one screens entries before voting for a winner. It’s a practical issue, really–you don’t want to have to start the contest over from scratch if an ineligible entry happens to win. I’m not sure why anyone would assume that they planned to screen the entries after the voting.

I misunderstood the procedures of the contest. But it doesn’t change that much of the argument. MoveOn is trying to be a truly democratic organization. An unwise move, in my opinion, but there you have it. Having a Hitler entry doesn’t mean the group approves of that entry… it merely means the entry is on the table. The group can’t be said to approve of the entry unless it makes it into some top tier… or perhaps some percentage of Yes votes, or something to that effect. All the initial screening did was to eliminate ads they couldn’t air on TV.

What discussion? Are we looking at different websites? They put up ads, visitors look at them. That’s hardly a forum for discussion. And I find it outright laughable that you are accusing me of supporting censorship.

You’re right, Mr. Sones. Communication can only occur with words. A bunch of pictures on a moving screen don’t convey any ideas. Which makes me wonder… why all the fuss about showing some wacky little guy with a stupid mustache?
As for accusing you of censorship… I never did. I merely claimed that an honest debate in which as many ideas as possible are considered is a foreign concept to you. Censorship often stems froms your mentality, but it doesn’t have to.

I thought you said that they didn’t even look at the entries before the judging? So how could they throw it out, whether it said that or not?

HAR HAR. Your misrepresentation is oh so amusing. Well, actually, it’s just rather tedioius, but what the hell. Let’s puncture it anyways. I never said that I didn’t look at the entries… I merely said they wouldn’t throw out entries they disagreed with. They did go through them and cull out entries they thought couldn’t be aired on TV.

Absolutely! For instance, Hitler tied his shoes every day, right after he put them on… and so does George W. Bush! It’s the Holocaust all over again.

You know… tying your shoe… invading countries… it’s all the same thing, really. And thus, your support of Mr. Bush becomes clearer and clearer.

You need to work on your reading comprehension, since my argument is pretty much identical to Rywill’s.

Alrighty Mr. Sones… here’s an idea that’s going to blow your little mind… people can have the same position… while having different arguments. Yes! It’s true!
You see, Rywill has consistently argued that the posting of content carries with it an implicit endorsement of that content. We haven’t explored exactly when he thinks there is endorsement and when there isn’t, but frankly, I don’t really care. You on the other hand, have argued a wide range of fairly stupid ideas, the closest one to Rywill’s being that any sort of screening is screening for agreement. According to you, screening just for “appropriateness” always includes screening for agreement with the idea. In the end, both arguments lead to the same practical real-world position. Nevertheless, they’re different arguments.

I’m done here. Anaxagoras, you are either a troll or a retard. I honestly can’t tell which. Either way, it’s obvious that debating with you is pointless.
You’re partially right, Ben. You are done. However, I disagree that the debate was pointless. I found it fascinating. I rarely get a chance to directly debate with one of the burnt-out toasters. Usually your kind hides scurries under a rock at the first sign of intellectual debate. This was a rare opportunity, and I thank you for it.

72

It’s actually pretty clear that you didn’t even read them. You’re the guy who claimed, for example, that the public didn’t vote on the ads, which is obviously untrue if you look at the contest stuff for even two seconds.

The group can’t be said to approve of the entry unless it makes it into some top tier… or perhaps some percentage of Yes votes, or something to that effect. All the initial screening did was to eliminate ads they couldn’t air on TV.

I’m not sure which of those vague standards you’re trying to apply, but none of them is sufficient anyway. I think there are two issues here:

  1. Whether MoveOn claims to be screening the ads for appropriateness or not is irrelevant to the RNC’s argument that MoveOn should be screening the ads for appropriateness. In other words, the RNC says “Hey, some schmoe sent you an ad comparing Bush to Hitler, and you just posted it to the Net. That’s incredibly lame, and you should take it down and apologize.” It’s no defense for MoveOn to say “Well, we put it up because we weren’t screening the ads.” The RNC’s point is that you should screen the ads before you put them up, because you’re a major political organization, you came up with this contest, and you should show some responsibility in how you handle the entries. It doesn’t matter what screening MoveOn did or didn’t agree to as part of the contest; the point is that if this ad got posted because they failed to screen the ads, that itself is a big problem. Like I’ve said countless times, if the RNC posted a home-made ad saying Howard Dean has AIDS and beats his wife, there’d be no end to the recriminations. And rightfully so.

  2. Even putting all that aside, though, you (Anaxagoras) keep claiming that MoveOn only agreed to screen the ads for TV appropriateness (meaning, I guess, that if someone says some FCC naughty word like “fuck” the ad wouldn’t get posted on the Net). But that flies in the face of MoveOn’s own statement, which folks have quoted here over and over again: that they could remove any ad that was “inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor’s reputation or goodwill.” I understand that they also said they would not post anything that can’t go on TV. But in addition to that, they said they wouldn’t post anything “inappropriate,” “offensive,” or “defamatory.” So your argument that MoveOn is just trying a happy experiment in true democracy is completely off-base. Again, it’s pretty apparent that you assert facts and make arguments without having much understanding of what you’re talking about. And the totally bizarre thing is that even when people come right out and quote MoveOn, you continue to brazenly assert that they’re just doing “TV screening,” like some kind of MoveOn Information Minister. Which I guess makes me the big dummy here for continuing to discuss this with you, but whatever.

I’m assuming you’re just deliberately misunderstanding him, but just to be clear: he didn’t say the ads don’t convey ideas. The ads clearly do. He said the ads are not a forum for discussion, like this group. Because the ads clearly aren’t. I’m not entirely sure whether A) you just don’t grasp the distiction or B) you are one of those folks who can’t say “Whoops, good point” during a debate, but whichever it is, it makes you look like a bit of a doofus.

73

Can’t… resist…

Close… close… but no. They approved of that content to the extent that they think it was appropriate for television. That’s it. Note: appropriate != agree with. It can, but it doesn’t have to. [/quote]

Look, I posted direct quotes–like, three times, now–regarding what MoveOn’s website says about the contest entries. There is really not much more I can say here. According to MoveOn, you are wrong.

I misunderstood the procedures of the contest. But it doesn’t change that much of the argument. MoveOn is trying to be a truly democratic organization. An unwise move, in my opinion, but there you have it. Having a Hitler entry doesn’t mean the group approves of that entry… it merely means the entry is on the table. The group can’t be said to approve of the entry unless it makes it into some top tier… or perhaps some percentage of Yes votes, or something to that effect. All the initial screening did was to eliminate ads they couldn’t air on TV.

This is rampant speculation. Or, in layman’s terms: you are just making stuff up. What’s more, your speculation flies in the face of the facts. Fact: MoveOn’s website says that it screened entries for appropriateness, for offensive material, for defamatory material, and it specifically clarifies that by saying that it will not admit entries not in keeping with the organization’s public image. Fact: one of the ads in question was watermarked, by MoveOn, with a text label that says “sponsored by MoveOn.org.”

Your assumption that MoveOn did not explicitly endorse the entries–especially the watermarked entry–doesn’t even qualify as a stretch of reasoning. It’s just obviously incorrect.

You’re right, Mr. Sones. Communication can only occur with words. A bunch of pictures on a moving screen don’t convey any ideas.

A “forum for discussion,” as you called it, requires two-way communication. The Bush in 30 Seconds website contains no discussion. It is a partisan website designed to promote one specific political agenda.

As for accusing you of censorship… I never did.

That is a lie.

I never said–or even suggested–that their ads should be censored, in spite of your ad hominem straw man. I said that it was lame of them to endorse those ads, and perfectly reasonable for the RNC to criticize them on that count. So rather than respond to my argument, you accuse me of holding beliefs that I do not actually hold, and attack my character. As sleazy debating tactics go, that’s pretty much the bottom of the barrel.

I merely claimed that an honest debate in which as many ideas as possible are considered is a foreign concept to you.

Hey! Another ad hominem attack! You are on a role, asshole! And just to clarify, you didn’t say anything of the sort. That quote of yours that I responded to was referring to the Bush in 30 Seconds website, which is clearly not a place “in which as many ideas as possible are considered.”

Ah, Mr. Sones. While I support your efforts to use the really cool words that you just read in your See Spot Run books, do please learn what they mean and how to use them before using them in a public setting. Surreal indicates a dream-like quality. With a different lead-in, this very clever insult may have worked. Unfortunately, “funny” doesn’t indicate “dream-like”. Perhaps you might consider calling me ridiculous, outlandish, or bizarre next time. It will make the insult much more effective. Trust me.

More English lessons! Or is that an art lesson? Thank you, oh wise one! I know what “surreal,” means, even though you obviously don’t. And that wasn’t an insult, by the way.

[quote]I thought you said that they didn’t even look at the entries before the judging? So how could they throw it out, whether it said that or not?

HAR HAR. Your misrepresentation is oh so amusing. Well, actually, it’s just rather tedioius, but what the hell. Let’s puncture it anyways. I never said that I didn’t look at the entries…[/quote]

That is a lie. You specifically said that you hadn’t seen them. This afternoon, you went back and edited your original post to say that you had. You even put a comment at the end of your post, right next to the edit mark, saying that you just now went and watched them.

I merely said they wouldn’t throw out entries they disagreed with.

Yes, you said that as well, many times, in spite of the fact that MoveOn’s website says otherwise.

You know… tying your shoe… invading countries… it’s all the same thing, really. And thus, your support of Mr. Bush becomes clearer and clearer.

You can’t even keep your arguments internally consistent. Earlier in this very same post you said that comparing people with Hitler is no big deal because he’s just a wacky guy with a moustache. Plus you sneak in another ad hominem attack. Another surreal ad hominem attack, since nothing could be further from the truth. Classy.

You see, Rywill has consistently argued that the posting of content carries with it an implicit endorsement of that content. We haven’t explored exactly when he thinks there is endorsement and when there isn’t,

Yes, we have. I’m getting tired of hunting for quotes, since it’s becoming more and more obvious that you don’t bother to read anything–including the other posts in this thread, and possibly including even your own previous posts. Go read what Rywill said again (or, probably, for the first time). It’s at the top of Page 2 in this thread.

You’re partially right, Ben. You are done. However, I disagree that the debate was pointless. I found it fascinating. I rarely get a chance to directly debate with one of the burnt-out toasters. Usually your kind hides scurries under a rock at the first sign of intellectual debate. This was a rare opportunity, and I thank you for it.

Wow, he caps it off with a personal attack that also manages to be patronizing. You, sir, are the glorious crown of intellect.

74

Better… better… at least here we get to substantive arguments.

It’s actually pretty clear that you didn’t even read them. You’re the guy who claimed, for example, that the public didn’t vote on the ads, which is obviously untrue if you look at the contest stuff for even two seconds.
[/quote] No… I briefly skimmed them. The exact procedure for picking out winning entries didn’t particularly interest me. And what I skimmed for was “screening procedures”, or the like. I’m not involved with MoveOn, and don’t particularly care about them or their contest. Thus… you’re pretty much right. And?

  1. Whether MoveOn claims to be screening the ads for appropriateness or not is irrelevant to the RNC’s argument that MoveOn should be screening the ads for appropriateness. In other words, the RNC says “Hey, some schmoe sent you an ad comparing Bush to Hitler, and you just posted it to the Net. That’s incredibly lame, and you should take it down and apologize.” It’s no defense for MoveOn to say “Well, we put it up because we weren’t screening the ads.” The RNC’s point is that you should screen the ads before you put them up, because you’re a major political organization, you came up with this contest, and you should show some responsibility in how you handle the entries. It doesn’t matter what screening MoveOn did or didn’t agree to as part of the contest; the point is that if this ad got posted because they failed to screen the ads, that itself is a big problem. Like I’ve said countless times, if the RNC posted a home-made ad saying Howard Dean has AIDS and beats his wife, there’d be no end to the recriminations. And rightfully so.

Yes, and if the claim was made that Bush killed Jews, we should scream bloody murder. None of the ads did. I’ve already specified which comparisons seem… appropriate, and which ones are just tasteless. The ones that were made were appropriate. RNC seems to bitching that they don’t like the ads. Well boo-hoo. There aren’t any ads that are beyond the pale.

  1. [Some content cut in order to save space] But in addition to that, they said they wouldn’t post anything “inappropriate,” “offensive,” or “defamatory.”

Yeah, I couldn’t find that exact phrase on their web site, but let’s go with it, and assume that those exact words appear there. “inappropriate” clearly falls into the TV screening category, which leaves “offensive” and “defamatory”. I think it’s safe to say that “defamatory” refers to out and out lies; if you expand it to include vague “slurs on character”, then just about all political ads are defamatory. Of course, this creates a grey area of when something is a lie and when it’s a “difference of opinion”, but I hardly think a grey area blows my argument away.
As for “offensive”, the argument is slightly different, but it’s the same basic idea as “defamatory”. I fail to see how the ads used by Republicans pass the “offensive” and “defamatory” criteria, while the ads on the MoveOn site fail. If you can honestly show that, then I’ll go ahead and admit I’m wrong. Until then, I think the RNC’s complaint is completely fucking absurd.

I’m not misunderstanding him… I’m parodying his ridiculous claim. A discussion is usually defined as something like “an exchange of ideas”. A bunch of adverts, all identifying different ways Bush blows, is an exchange of ideas.

I’m not entirely sure whether A) you just don’t grasp the distiction or B) you are one of those folks who can’t say “Whoops, good point” during a debate, but whichever it is, it makes you look like a bit of a doofus.

HAR HAR!!! You said doofus!! Jesus. Are you going to call me a poophead, next? Perhaps a big meany?

As for being unable to say “Whoops, good point”, that’s… that’s amazing. I’ve admitted several times, both in real life and on this board, when I was wrong. So far, I’ve seen you do it once. And that was only before you got your ego involved. After you’ve started throwing insults (which is often immediately) you never, ever back down, even when you’re proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Oh well. At least even when you’re insults are fucking stupid, your arguments aren’t too bad.

75

I thought you were done, Mr. Sones. Oh well. This won’t take long.

[quote]You’re right, Mr. Sones. Communication can only occur with words. A bunch of pictures on a moving screen don’t convey any ideas.

A “forum for discussion,” as you called it, requires two-way communication. The Bush in 30 Seconds website contains no discussion. It is a partisan website designed to promote one specific political agenda.
[/quote]
Discussion doesn’t have to be just two-way… a mutli-way (if there is such a word) exchange of ideas is still a discussion. And the question being discussed was: “How does Mr. Bush suck?” Just because you don’t like the question doesn’t mean it was any less of a discussion.

[quote]As for accusing you of censorship… I never did.

That is a lie.[/quote]
Fair enough. I was thinking of government censorship vs. internal censorship, but I didn’t in any way indicate that in my post. I withdraw that “I never accused you of censorship” comment.

And that’s exactly the problem. You automatically assume anything on the table to be discussed is endorsed by the organization. Of course the leaders would cull opinions they disagree with! It’s because of people like you that democracy is slowly dying in this country.

[quote]Surreal indicates a dream-like quality.

More English lessons! Or is that an art lesson? Thank you, oh wise one! I know what “surreal,” means, even though you obviously don’t. And that wasn’t an insult, by the way. [/quote]
You have much to learn, grasshopper. Stick to your studies and you too may eventually be able to think.

[quote] I never said that I didn’t look at the entries…

That is a lie. You specifically said that you hadn’t seen them. This afternoon, you went back and edited your original post to say that you had. You even put a comment at the end of your post, right next to the edit mark, saying that you just now went and watched them. [/quote]
That’s a typo. “I didn’t look at the entries” should read “they didn’t look at the entries”, with “they” referring to the MoveOn screening committee, or whoever initially screened the ads.

[quote]You know… tying your shoe… invading countries… it’s all the same thing, really. And thus, your support of Mr. Bush becomes clearer and clearer.

You can’t even keep your arguments internally consistent. Earlier in this very same post you said that comparing people with Hitler is no big deal because he’s just a wacky guy with a moustache.[/quote]
Oh dear. This is the problem with arguing with morons. That was sarcasm. A joke at your expense, if you will. It’s also called mockery… I’m surprised you don’t have more familiarity with it. Perhaps you wisely usually decide to keep your views to yourself.

[quote]You’re partially right, Ben. You are done. However, I disagree that the debate was pointless. I found it fascinating. I rarely get a chance to directly debate with one of the burnt-out toasters. Usually your kind hides scurries under a rock at the first sign of intellectual debate. This was a rare opportunity, and I thank you for it.

Wow, he caps it off with a personal attack that also manages to be patronizing. You, sir, are the glorious crown of intellect.[/quote] Woah! I was able to be both insulting and patronizing? Holy shit!!!

I’d like to thank all the little people that made these posts so easy. Well… OK… it was just Ben, but let’s give credit where credit is due.

76

I edited out all the comments that I made regarding the actual topic, since you seem steadfastly dedicated to avoiding all rational debate. At this point, the argument has boiled down to this:

“MoveOn says that they endorsed the ads.”

“No they didn’t.”

“They said as much on their website! Go look!”

“No they didn’t.”

“It’s branded on one of the movies! Seriously! Go watch it!”

“No they didn’t.”

I’m afraid that I have no good answer to your savvy debate tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALALALALALALALALAICAN’THEARYOU!!!” So I guess you win.

[quote][quote]Surreal indicates a dream-like quality.

More English lessons! Or is that an art lesson? Thank you, oh wise one! I know what “surreal,” means, even though you obviously don’t. And that wasn’t an insult, by the way. [/quote]
You have much to learn, grasshopper. Stick to your studies and you too may eventually be able to think.[/quote]

This is legitimately funny. I thought that you might try to save yourself further embarassment by at least Googling the word to see what it actually means, in this context. But apparently you are too lazy or too stupid to even do that.

[quote][quote] I never said that I didn’t look at the entries…

That is a lie. You specifically said that you hadn’t seen them. This afternoon, you went back and edited your original post to say that you had. You even put a comment at the end of your post, right next to the edit mark, saying that you just now went and watched them. [/quote]
That’s a typo. “I didn’t look at the entries” should read “they didn’t look at the entries”, with “they” referring to the MoveOn screening committee, or whoever initially screened the ads.[/quote]

You are still lying. You said that you hadn’t watched the ads, and that you didn’t know what comparisons they actually drew. You then said that if the ads claimed that Bush killed seven million Jews (or something to that effect), then they were out of line and the uproar was justified. But you made it very clear that you didn’t know what specific comparisons they made at the time, because you hadn’t watched them. Then, when you edited your post, you wrote “[edit] I’ve just read the scripts in the links provided.” The time stamp on that edit indicates that you added that today.

Why do you feel the need to lie about this? Do you really think that it helps your credibility? Just about everything you have said so far is either wildly unlikely, factually incorrect, a personal attack on me, or a willful lie about something you said in a past post in this thread. You are pathetic. Have the last word.

77

Last post for me, I think.

And, since most of your argument has been based on your claim that MoveOn only said they were screening the ads for TV-appropriateness, your failure to check to see what MoveOn said makes you a jackass.*

[size=2]*Apologies if this insult isn’t mean enough for you. I could call you a fucking jackass, if you think that would be better, or say you have the intellect of soup if you think that sort of thing is really witty. I don’t, so I usually don’t bother, but I can see it was really bugging you before and I don’t want to stress you out.[/size]

RNC seems to bitching that they don’t like the ads. Well boo-hoo. There aren’t any ads that are beyond the pale.

Well, we could discuss that if we wanted to, but only after we agree that MoveOn shouldn’t be posting inappropriate ads. I mean, all along here you’ve been saying it doesn’t matter what MoveOn did or didn’t post because they’re just the messenger. Now all of the sudden I guess you’re admitting that it does matter, but that you think the ads were fine. I don’t agree, but I’m not really interested in arguing about it with you.

Okay, let’s. I found those words in about five seconds. Hint: look for a section called “Rules and regulations” and try using your browser’s search function. Or don’t–it makes your arguments funnier when you say stuff like “I enjoy arguing with people who are as dumb as a burnt-out toaster” and then turn around and say you couldn’t find a specific word on a website.

“inappropriate” clearly falls into the TV screening category, which leaves “offensive” and “defamatory”.

Awesome! Here’s my position: I think Anaxagoras is a dumbass. Here’s my argument: “Anaxagoras” clearly falls into the dumbass category, so QED. I mean, Jesus Christ, the RNC complains that the Hitler ads are inappropriate. You say it doesn’t matter because MoveOn only agreed to screen ads for whether they are TV-acceptable. Everyone points out that no, MoveOn said they’d screen ads for appropriateness. You say “Oh, well, but that clearly just means for TV.” Yeah.

In any case, the ad was clearly inappropriate and offensive. It’s not “defamatory” in the legal sense, I guess, since one could argue that it makes no statement of fact, but it’s clearly defamatory the way that word is commonly used in the English language. Love or hate Bush–and I unquestionably hate him–he’s no Hitler, and saying he’s Hitler or is like Hitler is ridiculous and offensive to any normal person. Like Ben said (although you unsurprisingly failed to grasp it), saying someone is “like Hitler” is inflammatory, because Hitler is famous for being an evil racist slaughterer of millions. Thus, comparing someone to Hitler–even if you’re just doing it because they’re like Hitler in other ways–is offensive. If the point is that Bush is an idealogue and curtails civil liberties, there are plenty of people you could compare him to that don’t have Hitler’s Holocaust baggage. The only reason to pick Hitler as your comparison is because you wan’t to invoke that evil.

78

I don’t know if the “MoveOn” tags in the ads were added by MoveOn itself. Seeing as how most ads don’t have them, I’m going to guess that any mention of MoveOn in the ad itself was put in by the creators of the ad.

They did, however, allow these ads into a MoveOn sponsored contest. If that sponsorship of the ad? Sure, a bit. Of course, the quality of the ads spoke for themselves, and these ads all got low low scores and would never have been seen again.

What has been proved in all this is that there’s, at the least, a very small percentage of liberals that compare Bush to Hitler. I think what we need is a high quality ad that compares Bush to Hitler, so we can identify if the Bush=Hitler ads were rejected because of poor execution or because of poor content.

Therefore, someone should put up a million dollars for making a good Hitler=Bush ad.

79

Why is everyone getting so caught up on this notion of “sponsorship”?

The RNC criticized MoveOn.org for posting the ads, not sponsoring them (although there is certainly a valid arguement for saying that they did sponsor them.) MoveOn.org then (falsely) claimed that the RNC was being deliberately and maliciously misleading by claiming that MoveOn.org sponsored the ads. The RNC did no such thing. MoveOn.org’s criticisms of the RNC are predicated on MoveOn.org’s incorrect belief that the RNC said that they were sponsoring the ad.

While we can debate whether posting is sponsoring, the fact of the matter is that there is a much lower level of proof need to show “posting” than there is “sponsoring”. In Internet jargon, a “post” is a clearly definable event, “sponsor” much less so. I can prove The Entity posted in a particular thread, I’d have a much harder time proving that the sponsored or endorsed the thread.

It’s bad enough that MoveOn.org posted the ads, it’s typical political spin that they lied about the RNC’s response.

[size=2]I further believe that they then lied about the Cleland/Osama “morph” ad. I’ll bet $25 with the first person who takes me up on it, that the Chambliss ad did not “morph” Cleland’s picture into Osama’s or vice versa. And by “morph” I mean “change shape in a computer animation”, where the pictures are transform so they make a nearly seamless transistion. Fades and cuts do not qualify as a “morph”. I’ll pay up by check, money order, or Pay Pal, your choice.[/size]

80

Ie: Hitler and Bush.

Concentration camps: Check
Strong fundimentalist base: Check
Unilateral military campaign: Check
Plan to take over the world:Check (See Karl Rove’s new ‘book’)
Has Bush killed 6 million jews for being jewish? But that was not the olny evil thing Hitler did. sometimes it sure does feel like the NeoCons are following Mien Kamf except the American cleaner version.
Is it insulting to be compared…I sure hope so.

Oh and like it matters I am a practicing jew, and the way this government is treating Arabs is like a modern version of the Getto.Now they don’t need to be rounded up thanks to better survalence(sp) technology. I’m just waiting for the ‘National ID cards’ and loss of rights to work, travel and gather in public places. If you think about it, some of that isn’t too hard to imagine anymore.