How Is Obamania Like AIDS?

[Darth Rotor]

Okay, I see it's apparently a spoof of an ad about herpes; I don't watch a lot of TV so I'd never seen that particular ad. Hence I associated it with AIDS.

Maybe the inside joke is that the ad is an allusion to viral marketing.

DR

 

[Just thinking]

"This is your brain on Hope ... any questions?"

Yes, are we to assume that hoping in Obama is behavior that would come from a birdbrain?

 

[moon1969]

Looks like George Soros is at it again. Better tell that right winger Bill O"Reilly so he can exposed that evil unpatriotic unamerican Soros. Right wingers worship Rupert Murdoch but they hate people like George Soros, Ted Turner or Arianna Huffington. Yes Rupert Murdoch is a real patriot even if he is not an american.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Looks like George Soros is at it again. Better tell that right winger Bill O"Reilly so he can exposed that evil unpatriotic unamerican Soros. Right wingers worship Rupert Murdoch but they hate people like George Soros, Ted Turner or Arianna Huffington. Yes Rupert Murdoch is a real patriot even if he is not an american.

Why do you hate Australian patriots?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

just let all the racist posters jump in first....

yes, Obama's daddy was black.

Come on race baiters......

Well, he is HALF white.

But Hannity will never admit that,

 

[Axiom_Blade]

MoveOn.org has the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.
"We're a grassroots movement!" Sure, you are. The Democratic Party is not "grassroots", and MoveOn PAC agrees with the party all the way down the line.
As far as I can tell, they don't do any policy influencing, they're just an organ to pump money out of gullible Democrats.

That donation page is cute. Yes, let's all donate money to help Obama! Because his campaign is so underfunded!

 

[Pookster]

MoveOn.org has the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.
"We're a grassroots movement!" Sure, you are. The Democratic Party is not "grassroots", and MoveOn PAC agrees with the party all the way down the line.
As far as I can tell, they don't do any policy influencing, they're just an organ to pump money out of gullible Democrats.

That donation page is cute. Yes, let's all donate money to help Obama! Because his campaign is so underfunded!

What exactly is the "cognitive dissonance" you're eluding to?

 

[Damien Evans]

Why do you hate Australian patriots?

We disowned Murdoch long ago.

You can keep him.

 

[jj]

We disowned Murdoch long ago.

You can keep him.

No.

Take him back.

NOW!

 

[jj]

The Democratic Party is not "grassroots", and MoveOn PAC agrees with the party all the way down the line.

Ok, nice attempt to tar Democrats with the burden of some loony socialists.

I suggest that you prove your unqualified statement. If you can't, let's all just admit you're playing the old red-scare tactic on Obama.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Ok, nice attempt to tar Democrats with the burden of some loony socialists.

I suggest that you prove your unqualified statement. If you can't, let's all just admit you're playing the old red-scare tactic on Obama.

What are you talking about? Who are the "socialists" here?
Surely not MoveOn.org?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

What exactly is the "cognitive dissonance" you're eluding to?

Well, they're a grassroots movement with a centrist position for a mainstream party.
They obviously want you to think they're progressive, but they don't support any progressives (e.g. Kucinich). I mean, what's the point? Like I said, Obama's not underfunded.

MoveOn.org is for those Democrats who think they're fighting "the Man" by voting for Obama.

 

[Pookster]

Well, they're a grassroots movement with a centrist position for a mainstream party.
They obviously want you to think they're progressive, but they don't support any progressives (e.g. Kucinich). I mean, what's the point? Like I said, Obama's not underfunded.

MoveOn.org is for those Democrats who think they're fighting "the Man" by voting for Obama.

Define progressive, please. Thanks.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Define progressive, please. Thanks.

Here's a good definition.

Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and the Labour party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

You know, those people who want universal health care, bringing the troops home (instead of redeployment), pro-impeachment, etc. etc. (e.g. Cindy Sheehan, Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Norman Soloman, et al)

MoveOn.org is in the Nancy Pelosi, play-nice-with-the-Republicans wing. Yet, they try to cultivate a rebellious, hip image, in order to court the youth vote. Thus, the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Pookster]

Here's a good definition.



You know, those people who want universal health care, bringing the troops home (instead of redeployment), pro-impeachment, etc. etc. (e.g. Cindy Sheehan, Kucinich, Noam Chomsky, Norman Soloman, et al)

I didn't see "bringing the troops home (instead of redeployment), pro-impeachment" in the definition you quoted. You seem to want to apply the definition in your own very narrow interpretation.

MoveOn.org is in the Nancy Pelosi, play-nice-with-the-Republicans wing. Yet, they try to cultivate a rebellious, hip image, in order to court the youth vote. Thus, the cognitive dissonance.

MoveOn plays nice with the Republicans? Since when?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I didn't see "bringing the troops home (instead of redeployment), pro-impeachment" in the definition you quoted. You seem to want to apply the definition in your own very narrow interpretation.

I'm not very fond of semantic arguments.
Who do you think gets to define what a "progressive" is?
MoveOn.org?

People like Sheehan and Kucinich, who are progressives, hold those positions. Others do not. If you want to expand the definition to include people who are ideologically opposed to these things, then the word loses its meaning.

MoveOn plays nice with the Republicans? Since when?

Since it supports politicians who vote for Bush's wars and give him standing ovations when he speaks.

 

[jj]

about MoveOn
Since it supports politicians who vote for Bush's wars and give him standing ovations when he speaks.

Oh my goodness, what kind of definition are we using today?

 

[Pookster]

I'm not very fond of semantic arguments.
Who do you think gets to define what a "progressive" is?
MoveOn.org?

People like Sheehan and Kucinich, who are progressives, hold those positions. Others do not. If you want to expand the definition to include people who are ideologically opposed to these things, then the word loses its meaning.

Whoever wants to. Just don't pretend what you said is actually in the definition you quoted though.

Since it supports politicians who vote for Bush's wars and give him standing ovations when he speaks.

Who?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Whoever wants to. Just don't pretend what you said is actually in the definition you quoted though.

So, a Neo-Nazi could call herself "progressive", and it would be justified?
Does this word have meaning, or not?

Who?

John Kerry.
Although Obama didn't vote for the war itself, he has voted "yes" on every single appropriations bill to fund the war.

They have never, to my knowledge, supported anyone with progressive values like Kucinich or Gravel. Why is this?
Can you provide a counter-example?

If you could, it would help me feel a little better about the Democratic Party.
However, I doubt there are any. While campaigning for Kucinich in college, I quickly learned that the party views such "fringe candidates" with suspicion and distrust. They appreciate those candidates because they take away voters from the Greens and other third parties, but they would never give them support, since their true agenda is much closer to the Republicans.

I was on MoveOn.org's mailing list for a long time, too.
Most of it was crap.
They would often ask for donations for candidates that weren't even campaigning in my state! The fact that they are requesting donations to run ads for Obama, who already has millions, shows that they've just gotten more absurd over the years.

Way to go! Just keep ragin' against the machine!

There's a great quote from John Stauber of the Center for Media & Democracy in this article from Counterpunch:

MoveOn is not a movement although it wants to be perceived as one. It is a brilliant and effective fundraising and marketing machine, but 95% or more of their so-called members ignore any particular email appeal. These 3.2 million people on the MoveOn email list are the object of marketing and fundraising campaigns, but they have absolutely no meaningful or democratic control over the decisions of organization, there is no accountability from the leadership to the MoveOn list members, and those of us on the list are unable to organize and communicate amongst ourselves within the list because it can’t be accessed by the grassroots at the local or state level. MoveOn, the Democracy Alliance, and the various liberal think tanks that have arisen to fight the Right are clearly a force able to raise millions of dollars for Democratic candidates and launch PR and messaging campaigns, but none of them are about empowering a populist grassroots uprising.

 

[Pookster]

So, a Neo-Nazi could call herself "progressive", and it would be justified?

Not likely.

Does this word have meaning, or not?

You quoted a definition and then gave me another that, I assume, is your own definition. So, it seems at least two people believe it does, but aren't necessarily in agreement.

John Kerry.

Although Obama didn't vote for the war itself, he has voted "yes" on every single appropriations bill to fund the war.

Neither John Kerry or Barack Obama are Republicans. I'm not sure we're on the same page with this. Lets try this again. You said "MoveOn.org is in the Nancy Pelosi, play-nice-with-the-Republicans wing".

Here is what I asked as a reply: "MoveOn plays nice with the Republicans? Since when?"

You replied with: "Since it supports politicians who vote for Bush's wars and give him standing ovations when he speaks."

So, are you saying that since MoveOn supports Obama and Kerry, MoveOn is playing nice with the Republicans?