Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Holy freaking cow.

I just saw the newest ad on TV from Moveon.org and I fell out of my chair laughing.

Moveon.org, the hugely liberal group, has become ISOLATIONIST. The ad shows a white southern baptist woman complaining that the U.S. needs to stop spending money in Iraq (and it implies, the rest of the world as well) and focus on issues at home.

Now look, this is hilarious to me because this has been the mantra of the alleged "racist" ultra-right Pat Buchanan. How freaking hypocritical can Moveon possibly be? This is a group funded largely by George Soros who is as globalist and anyone I've ever heard trying to argue that the U.S. become ISOLATIONIST.

I would be the first person in line to vote for Kerry and the Dems if they truly were isolationist because that would make them the most conservative party since what? The know-nothings of the 1850s? But this is the guy who says the only real problem with the war in Iraq is that we didn't have full UN backing.

Sure sounds like isolationism to me!

I hope this ad finally gets people to realize how gutless Moveon.org really is.

Hilarious.

I can't find that ad on moveon.org, moveon.com, or any afffiliates.

Please post a link.

I looked for it online right after I posted and haven't seen it.

It ran about 7 times during the Convention last night and was funded by the MoveON PAC, which is the "legitimate" arm of Moveon.org so it may not be posted on the site. I'll keep checking around.

EDIT:

Oops, found it. https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/swi..._id=14&id=

here's the text of the ad:
"It upsets me that we can spend billions and billions of dollars trying to liberate other people when there are so many people in this country who need help. They don't need liberation, but they need healthcare. They need food on their table. They need education. It's time to invest in this country. That's what I want to hear about. I'm still a Baptist, but I'm no longer a Republican." --Rhonda Nix, Laser Printer Technician

Okay, so when are you going to start complaining about the swiftvets ads, which are still running and are the most untrue, and hateful, ads in political history?

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Okay, so when are you going to start complaining about the swiftvets ads, which are still running and are the most untrue, and hateful, ads in political history?

Wow, I'm surprised to hear you say that. As an ultra-liberal surely you remember the Horton ads? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you weren't so partisan you'd remember the racist ads against Bush last time around too.

As I recall, the only racist ads in the 2000 campaign were the attack ads against McCain, that were calling attention to what they called his 'illegitimate black child' (McCain's kid was adopted).

The campaign was perpetrated by Karl Rove and other Bush cronies.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla As I recall, the only racist ads in the 2000 campaign were the attack ads against McCain, that were calling attention to what they called his 'illegitimate black child' (McCain's kid was adopted). The campaign was perpetrated by Karl Rove and other Bush cronies.

I'm not surprised you don't remember, since ultra-liberals probably believe the ad was justified. It basically blamed Bush because some racist in Texas killed a black man by dragging him behind his car, as if Bush supported that or condoned it or something. Really disgusting stuff.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Okay, so when are you going to start complaining about the swiftvets ads, which are still running and are the most untrue, and hateful, ads in political history?

Never, because in the eyes of the vets they are truthful. I don't give a rats what anyone says if they are genuine about it. I've sat around a porch with a group of vets talking about the ads and they support it. I'm not going to tell ANY vet what to say.

And I'm not complaining about this ad, I'm laughing my ass off at it, there's a difference.

Stop calling yourself stupid, have some self esteem.

Or get a gun. A hollow point .45 in the mouth would get the job done.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla Stop calling yourself stupid, have some self esteem. Or get a gun. A hollow point .45 in the mouth would get the job done.

Wow, responses to things never even stated... Sounds like this fellow has more problems than being an ultra-lib.

Still love those ads though!

Originally Posted by elprincipe I'm not surprised you don't remember, since ultra-liberals probably believe the ad was justified. It basically blamed Bush because some racist in Texas killed a black man by dragging him behind his car, as if Bush supported that or condoned it or something. Really disgusting stuff.

Are you confusing the Willie Horton ads with the James Byrd case? The Willie Horton ads were orchestrated by Lee Atwood to discredit Michael Dukakis. They were pro-Bush Sr.

James Byrd was the black man who was drug behind a truck in Texas by two racist peckerwoods. I don't recall any ads blaming Bush Jr. for that. If there were, do you have a link? As I recall, the perpetrators were caught rather quickly and got eith the death penalty or life in prison.

The ads were put out by the NAACP.

I'm sure they are floating around somewhere, i can look.

here's the text of it at least:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html

Originally Posted by kev The ads were put out by the NAACP. I'm sure they are floating around somewhere, i can look. here's the text of it at least: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html

Okay, that blames Bush for opposing hate-crime legislation. It's not a smear.

Pat Buchanan was just on Bill Maher saying (in a round about way) that he's voting for Bush.

Originally Posted by MrBadExample Okay, that blames Bush for opposing hate-crime legislation. It's not a smear.

The ad made it seem that Bush's actions led to Byrd's death from a racist attack. If that's not a smear I don't know what is. Really offensive, and should be regardless of whether you like Bush or not.

No, I'm not getting that. The NAACP is faulting Bush for not supporting a stronger hate-crime statute. This ad is nothing compared to what the GOP has done.

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stori.../06/26/2831388

This has a more in-depth discussion of the ad.

If you, or they, really believed that, why put images of Byrd in the ad?

You can say he's against hate crime legislation without implying he was involved in the case.

Every legitimate media outlet you can find plus PRESIDENT FREAKING CLINTON who condemned the ad says it was in bad taste for the way the images were used.

It was in as bad of taste as George Bush using images of the flaming twin towers in his ad, and using 9/11 as the theme of the RNC.

Originally Posted by kev If you, or they, really believed that, why put images of Byrd in the ad? You can say he's against hate crime legislation without implying he was involved in the case. Every legitimate media outlet you can find plus PRESIDENT FREAKING CLINTON who condemned the ad says it was in bad taste for the way the images were used.

Because James Byrd's murder was a huge story and they were using it as an example of cases that should have stronger penalties - DUH!

I have not said whether the ad was in good or bad taste, but from what I've read, at least the it was truthful which is more than you can say about a lot of GOP rants lately.