Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Resolution Condemning MoveOn.org Passes, Kos Kidz Seething
littlegreenfootballs.com — President Bush ripped the Democrats today over their disgraceful failure to denounce the anti-Petraeus MoveOn.org advertisement. Meanwhile, the Senate just passed the resolution condemning MoveOn.org, and the Kos Kidz are boiling with rage: Daily Kos: Do the Democrats even know who...
BottledSunshine- 81 diggs
- digg it
- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -8/+32Good. Its good to know that every democrat in the senate isn't a moron. I wonder who the 25 were that didn't condemn it? I'd love to hear their reason why.
- Troika37, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Among others, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid and Boxer.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9The usual suspects.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I've sent my two Democratic senators a letter commending them for voting to pass the resolution. It's nice to see that not everyone is beholden to PACs like MoveOn.org.
- PurpleDragon2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2First, the defenders of libel:
Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Clinton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin,
Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Menendez, Murray, Reed, Reid,
Rockefeller, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Whitehouse, Wyden
And those too craven to take a stand:
Biden, Cantwell, Obama
- Troika37, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Among others, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid and Boxer.
- mattowan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29How dare some Dems actually think for themselves.
- Erythroxylum, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15What's a 'MoveOn Democrat'? Eh, nevermind - it's not important.
Kossacks - how about a little angry protest with signs ('Behead those that question our right to insult our betters!') and chanting? We know how you people like to complain about things, everything. That'll make you feel better, maintain the status quo, and we can get on with our lives without any more of this...ugliness. Seriously it's no wonder nobody likes you people very much. - blorc, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3All the more reason to switch that vote over from Democrat to Ron Paul!
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What exactly is the difference between a Democrat and Ron Paul? I bet you can't even tell us that.
- Chip53, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Suck it, Kos!
- AJFranklin, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5Name calling aside--McCain saying MoveOn with over 2 million members "should be thrown out ot this country" aside--I have to wonder WTF those Dimmocratz who played into the hands of the GoPPigs were thinking to support such a disgusting piece of legislative nonsense? Betrayus was sent up there on 9/11--Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11--he was a piece of political theater. There is no amount of silly name calling ads in the NYTimes that could begin to equate with what he is doing, supporting a lost war and taking hundreds more of our troops to their graves. If that isn't a betrayal I don't know what is.
- Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7FOAD DIggBott
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Missed your daily dose of thorazine, eh truther?
- JohnReb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Congress wrote the law requiring the report by Sept 15. Then Congress decided to leave for it's vacation prior to the Jewish High Holy Days on the 12th.
Blame the Democrats in Congress for him being there on September 11th, they set the schedule
- sfpfc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I am actually more offended that the new york times gave them a discount then the ad itself. I disagree with many political advertisements (not that I am opposed to it) especially because I would rather watch a bud light commercial, but I am getting off track. I am finding it extremely difficult to find any media source that does not have a political slant and I have all but given up on that.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5The NY Times did not 'give them a discount', thats just a GOP talking point. They got charged $64,575 , the same rate that they charge all advocacy groups for "full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them". The conservative group Freedom's March got this same rate when they launched a rebuttal ad.
- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Howsabout you PROVE they didn't get a discount? Since it's pretty much an established fact that they did. IF Freedom's Watch got the same rate - I haven't looked into it yet, but it's quite likely - it's directly because they told the NYT that they'd BETTER give them that rate because MoveOn got it: This is a demand they made in direct consequence of MoveOn getting a DISCOUNT, *NOT* the "normal" rate. Rudy Giuliani demanded the same thing. This isn't some speculation I'm making up, either - see links below. YOU, sir, don't pay any attention to the news, apparently, and you DARE say that anything that makes the Defeatist Party look bad is just a "GOP talking point?" The sheer ignorance combined with arrogance from your type is disgusting.
[ There are many more sources, but this should be enough: ]
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142007/news/national ...
...
The Times acknowledged to The Post on Wednesday that the going rate for such an ad would be $181,692.
But a spokesman for MoveOn told The Post that the group paid just $65,000.
Earlier in the day, the paper's spokeswoman said MoveOn had re ceived a discount and confirmed to Reuters the normal rate was "about $181,000." But later, the same spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the proper rate for such an ad is about $65,000.
Saying he wanted to place an advocacy group ad similar to MoveOn's, a Post re porter who contacted the Times without identifying himself was told earlier this week that the rate was about $167,000.
"We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, confirming that the normal rate was "around $181,000."
...
[ In other words, it was confirmed multiple times that MoveOn paid SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than the normal price. Someone at the NYT did claim that they didn't, but this was either "confusion" on their part, as noted above, or quite likely, a blatant lie that was easily uncovered and thus is now painted as confusion. For someone like you to ignorantly claim MoveOn did not get a discount based on what was confirmed to be false multiple times is preposterous and only goes to show that you ignore all facts that don't fit your bias-laden narrative. ]- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Not true.
Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14pa ...
Maybe you should actually go ahead and look into things before you comment on them.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Not true.
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6And you believe the NYTimes? LOL Maybe you should learn to google.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296696,00.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/14/gi ...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010598
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/09 ...
It's a right wing blog lie huh? Btw, MOVEON.ORG said they got the discount. So either NYTimes is lying or Moveon.org.- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4The New York Post is the only source here, all those other pages you linked to are just pages that link to the Post.
The Post reporter says that a New York Times rate card lists a price of $181,692 for a full page ad run at a specific date and time. However, the reporter failed to mention that they charge a different rate ($64,575) for a standby ad. Standby rates aren't on the rate card. Again, others have gotten the same rate as well, like Giuliani and Freedom's Watch.
"Within the category of political or advocacy advertising it is common practice throughout the newspaper industry to offer a standby rate in addition to open rate advertising. When a group buys a standby ad, it can request a particular date for it to be run, but receives no guarantee that it can appear that day. The lower cost of such ads reflects the flexibility that gives us. Any political or advocacy group calling up today to request a standby ad would be quoted the same rate that MoveOn.org paid.
It is also our practice to notify an advertiser, a day before, that we have room to accommodate his or her standby ad in the next day's newspaper, and at that point the advertiser can make minor changes in the text."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/media/1 ...
Your claim that "MOVEON.ORG said they got the discount" is untrue. MoveOn.org said that they paid the standard standby rate.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4The New York Post is the only source here, all those other pages you linked to are just pages that link to the Post.
- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Howsabout you PROVE they didn't get a discount? Since it's pretty much an established fact that they did. IF Freedom's Watch got the same rate - I haven't looked into it yet, but it's quite likely - it's directly because they told the NYT that they'd BETTER give them that rate because MoveOn got it: This is a demand they made in direct consequence of MoveOn getting a DISCOUNT, *NOT* the "normal" rate. Rudy Giuliani demanded the same thing. This isn't some speculation I'm making up, either - see links below. YOU, sir, don't pay any attention to the news, apparently, and you DARE say that anything that makes the Defeatist Party look bad is just a "GOP talking point?" The sheer ignorance combined with arrogance from your type is disgusting.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5The NY Times did not 'give them a discount', thats just a GOP talking point. They got charged $64,575 , the same rate that they charge all advocacy groups for "full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them". The conservative group Freedom's March got this same rate when they launched a rebuttal ad.
- nrsc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Watch the NRSC's response to MoveOn.org's attack ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dT-gbLZWIc
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7LGF isn't blocked from digg?
It's been so long since I saw a story from them I thought they must have curled up and died. I can't stand the extremists on either the right or the left, but LGF spews as much hate and intolerance as Anne Coulter ever could. I dugg this story because I'm disgusted with the Right's attempt to link every single Democrat to the ad in question... even though they had NOTHING to do with it.
Seriously... the voices crying out "condemn moveon.org and this ad or you hate America" and all the other misleading ***** are opportunistic, lying, manipulative asstunnels. I'm ***** annoyed that our government spent any of my money arguing about it on time that American citizens paid for. Maybe if they would get back to work and do something useful with their time instead of bitching about that ad on my dime, then they'd actually do something productive.
This government (Legislative and Executive branches especially) are the most useless bunch of self-serving ***** to ever darken the doors of our nations capitol. ***** them all.- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Sorry, but if you don't condemn MoveOn, then YES, there's something inherently anti-American about you. It's just a despicable ad. But no, your type will say this hateful ad is just fine and in the same breath condemn those that condemn it - e.g. LGF - as hate-mongerers! Get a clue, will you? Let go of your own hate and maybe you'll see the Right isn't half as hateful as you used to be (present tense: are).
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Yeah InfamousAtheist, how dare you disagree with LGF you anti-American commie terrorist. Anyone who thinks LGFers are a bunch of authoritarian hatemongers who drown out rational debate with personal attacks is obviously a terrorist hippie moonbat liberal Kos Kid. You should quit trying to label them as groupthink-prone extremists because you're nothing but an arrogant America-hating Diggbot , and therefore no one should even consider any of your completely accurate claims about LGF.
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5^^ added as friend
- InfamousAtheist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6I didn't say one way or the other if I condemn the ad, but you clearly think that I approve of it... because I don't think it's fair for politicians to say "condemn that ad" to other politicians who had absolutely nothing to do with the ad. Let's hear it for putting words in my mouth.
Yeah I hate LGF and the trolls who frequent the site. So what? I hate most extremists (wait... I already said that, didn't I?). I also hate extremists on the other side of the fence. Maybe if you bothered to read my comment, and attempted to comprehend it, you would've figured that out.
You fail. I suppose you're used to it though.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Yeah InfamousAtheist, how dare you disagree with LGF you anti-American commie terrorist. Anyone who thinks LGFers are a bunch of authoritarian hatemongers who drown out rational debate with personal attacks is obviously a terrorist hippie moonbat liberal Kos Kid. You should quit trying to label them as groupthink-prone extremists because you're nothing but an arrogant America-hating Diggbot , and therefore no one should even consider any of your completely accurate claims about LGF.
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I find it hilariously hypocritical that's it's soooooooooooooo immoral and wrong for anyone to condemn Moveon.org, but it's OKAY for YOU to condemn LGF. I guess some "hate" is better than others, huh? Phony.
- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Sorry, but if you don't condemn MoveOn, then YES, there's something inherently anti-American about you. It's just a despicable ad. But no, your type will say this hateful ad is just fine and in the same breath condemn those that condemn it - e.g. LGF - as hate-mongerers! Get a clue, will you? Let go of your own hate and maybe you'll see the Right isn't half as hateful as you used to be (present tense: are).
- slugicide, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6littlegreenfootballs = bury as lame
- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12AKA "I can't think of a proper reason to bury it but it hurts my political sensibilities so I'll bury it anyway."
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Okay. Oh you mean bury LGF. Too late;)
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I guess some people can't take sarcasm
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Nothing is wrong with the ad. It raised a legitimate point, namely that the General is betraying the public trust by distorting facts to make Bush's "Surge" look better. And yes, telling Congress things like 'getting hit by a car bomb and getting shot in the back of the head are not forms of violence' under oath is a betrayal of the public trust.
By the way, MoveOn didn't come up with "General Betrayus" - some of his soldiers did (it was Colonel Betrayus, at the time.)- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6So, it's "betraying the public trust" to say Bush could be right, or is it just betraying, Bush Derangement Syndrome? LOL
- Troika37, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6You do realize that Petraeus was unanimously confirmed in the Senate and has been a favourite of the Liberals for decades, right" Petraeus was a favorite of liberal journalists: the man who earned his PhD at Princeton, who enjoyed the company of the media and intellectuals, so much so that he was vaguely distrusted by other general officers who envied the good ink he received.
Now that he says something they don't want to hear, and he's instantly villified.
Typical leftist. Support someone until they disagree with you, then do everything in your power to destroy them.
- Glynth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11One of the best demonstrations of just how far gone Kos Kids are can be seen above, with frantic "OMG LGF IS EVIL" tools coming out to defend the indefensible (as usual), displaying their arrogance and hate despite it being so clear to any casual observer of America as a whole that the MoveOn ad is utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of us that actually know anything about it. That Kos Kids and certain Diggers rally around it, saying "nothing is wrong with [it]," that it's valid, etc., just goes to show how divorced from reality and married to hatred they are.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Typical conservative response to criticism; ignore the argument, attack the messenger. This is why no one takes you guys seriously anymore.
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Do you know how asinine and hypocritical you look when you accuse conservatives of "attacking the messenger," when you are trying to defend an add that called Gen Patreus, "General Betray Us?" Yeah THAT's not attacking the messenger, right? Freaking mindless libs.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Claiming that a person betrays the public trust because he misleads the public, and providing evidence to support that claim, is not an ad hominem argument. If all the ad said was the remark "General Betray Us?", the remark would have been an ad hominem argument. But in the context of the ad as a whole, which is a critique of claims made by the General, it is not.
"FOAD DIggBott", "Missed your daily dose of thorazine, eh truther?", and "Bush Derangement Syndrome? LOL" are all ad hominem attacks. Those statements are abusive remarks meant to attack a person's character and to avoid addressing the relevance or truthfulness of their argument.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2An ad hominem argument consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to an irrelevant characteristic about the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Do you know how asinine and hypocritical you look when you accuse conservatives of "attacking the messenger," when you are trying to defend an add that called Gen Patreus, "General Betray Us?" Yeah THAT's not attacking the messenger, right? Freaking mindless libs.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6Typical conservative response to criticism; ignore the argument, attack the messenger. This is why no one takes you guys seriously anymore.
- akira185, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Helloooooooooooo liar libs. The NYTimes ADMITs they gave Moveon.org a lower rate, but rationalizes it in this way.
"Within the category of political or advocacy advertising it is common practice throughout the newspaper industry to offer a standby rate in addition to open rate advertising. When a group buys a standby ad, it can request a particular date for it to be run, but receives no guarantee that it can appear that day. The lower cost of such ads reflects the flexibility that gives us. Any political or advocacy group calling up today to request a standby ad would be quoted the same rate that MoveOn.org paid."
Typical liberalism. "Oh the rumor that Moveon.org paid a lower rate is a right wing lie" then they link to something that admits Moveon DID pay a lower rate, but tries to excuse the lower rate with a little corporate BS. Nice try libs.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is