MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

[Oliver]

So I went to MoveOn.org to find this controversial "Petraeus - Betray Us" Ad
everyone was talking about in the last days - and besides the Ad itself, I read
about their petition against a "resolution condemning MoveOn.org" which was
passed by the Senate on September, 19:

The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet. They passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org and it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us who care about responsibly ending this war. They wanted to send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone--especially politicians--think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.

Source: http://pol.moveon.org/fightback/
Source: http://www.moveon.org/



SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

---------------------- *snip* ----------------------​

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.


Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344
Source:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110Q8khGl:e121497:

Correct me if I'm wrong - but does anyone who voted for the
resolution actually believes in the first amendment by him-/herself?
Or didn't they read the content of the resolution - once again?

Additional Sources:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q...uggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&o...um=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1&ncl=1120993906

 

[Ziggurat]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but does anyone who voted for the resolution actually believes in the first amendment by him-/herself?

You are wrong, so let me correct you. Let's look at the First Ammendment (bolding mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is this resolution a law? No, it is not. Is it similar to a law? No, it is not. Does it have any legal significance at all? No, it does not. Now, you might not like Congress doing this, but it doesn't involve the first ammendment in any way, shape, or form. If you want to form an argument against it, you had better look elsewhere.

 

[Oliver]

You are wrong, so let me correct you. Let's look at the First Ammendment (bolding mine):

Is this resolution a law? No, it is not. Is it similar to a law? No, it is not. Does it have any legal significance at all? No, it does not. Now, you might not like Congress doing this, but it doesn't involve the first ammendment in any way, shape, or form. If you want to form an argument against it, you had better look elsewhere.

So? What was the purpose of the resolution? :
"Pointless blabbering and wasting time"?

 

[corplinx]

So? What was the purpose of the resolution? :
"Blabbering and wasting time"?

Something more insidious, its meant to portray the democrat candidates for president as being unpatriotic. Its been part of the US Republican playbook for years. The GOP pulls stunts to make Dems look like commies and hippies. The Dems pull stunts to make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor.

 

[Oliver]

Something more insidious, its meant to portray the democrat candidates for president as being unpatriotic. Its been part of the US Republican playbook for years. The GOP pulls stunts to make Dems look like commies and hippies. The Dems pull stunts to make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor.

Well, now that is indeed a waste of time. I mean the Reps already
have Fox for this kind of jobs ... But I agree - it was probably O'Reilly
himself who initiated the whole resolution anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

So? What was the purpose of the resolution? :
"Pointless blabbering and wasting time"?

The point was politics. You can decide for yourself whether that counts as pointless blabbering and wasting time, though politicians in any democracy spend a significant amount of their time doing things that are just politics.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

The GOP pulls stunts to make Dems look like commies and hippies. The Dems pull stunts to make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor.

Well, at least the Democrats are telling the truth in this rare case.

 

[Fnord]

(Bolding Mine)

Is this resolution a law? No, it is not. Is it similar to a law? No, it is not. Does it have any legal significance at all? No, it does not. Now, you might not like Congress doing this, but it doesn't involve the first ammendment in any way, shape, or form. If you want to form an argument against it, you had better look elsewhere.

Actually, it might ... in a way ... sorta ...

If you consider Congress as a single corporate entitity driven by consensus, then you could say that Congress, as a whole, was exercising its Constitutional right to free speach.

That's just my opinion, and has no bearing against the rest of your statement, including the part about looking elsewhere to form an argument against the fact that the resolution has no legal significance at all.

 

[JoeEllison]

Something more insidious, its meant to portray the democrat candidates for president as being unpatriotic. Its been part of the US Republican playbook for years. The GOP pulls stunts to make Dems look like commies and hippies. The Dems pull stunts to make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor.

Actually, you could more accurately say "the GOP pull stunts that make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor."

 

[JoeEllison]

You are wrong, so let me correct you. Let's look at the First Ammendment (bolding mine):



Is this resolution a law? No, it is not. Is it similar to a law? No, it is not. Does it have any legal significance at all? No, it does not. Now, you might not like Congress doing this, but it doesn't involve the first ammendment in any way, shape, or form. If you want to form an argument against it, you had better look elsewhere.

Certainly, it is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.

 

[corplinx]

Actually, you could more accurately say "the GOP pull stunts that make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor."

If you buy either of these types of broad brush stereotypes the 2 parties are selling, you might be more comfortable on a non-critical thinking forum.

 

[JoeEllison]

If you buy either of these types of broad brush stereotypes the 2 parties are selling, you might be more comfortable on a non-critical thinking forum.

Oh please... give me a break, and get yourself a sense of humor and a clearer view of reality. Certainly, the GOP has dug its own hole over the past couple of decades.

 

[corplinx]

Oh please... give me a break, and get yourself a sense of humor and a clearer view of reality. Certainly, the GOP has dug its own hole over the past couple of decades.

Every movement needs sheeple. When you see the Hannity-lovers calling Dems traitors and surrender monkeys, before you criticize, turn and take a look at the silly things you've been led to believe.

Heres to hoping you grow out of these simple team-sport like attitudes these people have installed in their fans.

 

[Fnord]

Certainly, it is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.

Please define the "spirit" of the First Amendment (which is actually the First Article to the Bill of Rights, but I'm nit-picking).

Two ideas:

1) No-one was censored or issued a "gag order."

2) The mere fact that everyone has an equal right to free speech does not mean that everyone has something equally important to say (take a look at some of the crapazoidally obtuse comments that I have made!).

 

[fuelair]

So I went to MoveOn.org to find this controversial "Petraeus - Betray Us" Ad
everyone was talking about in the last days - and besides the Ad itself, I read
about their petition against a "resolution condemning MoveOn.org" which was
passed by the Senate on September, 19:




Correct me if I'm wrong - but does anyone who voted for the
resolution actually believes in the first amendment by him-/herself?
Or didn't they read the content of the resolution - once again?

Additional Sources:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q...uggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&o...um=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1&ncl=1120993906

Much more important problem: the military did not make a report that provided Shrub another keep looking like we are doing something opportunity, Petraeus did. Petraeus was the target, not the military - but Shrub's Bboys keep making an attack on a person who helped cover for Shrub an attack on the military -WHICH IT WAS NOT!!!

 

[fuelair]

Something more insidious, its meant to portray the democrat candidates for president as being unpatriotic. Its been part of the US Republican playbook for years. The GOP pulls stunts to make Dems look like commies and hippies. The Dems pull stunts to make GOP look like cigar smoking robber barons who eat the poor.

Perfectly said!!

 

[pgwenthold]

So did Congress pass a resolution condemning the morons who attacked a decorated war hero John Kerry?

Oh no, Bush and the republican congress were awfully silent then.

 

[JoeEllison]

Every movement needs sheeple. When you see the Hannity-lovers calling Dems traitors and surrender monkeys, before you criticize, turn and take a look at the silly things you've been led to believe.

Heres to hoping you grow out of these simple team-sport like attitudes these people have installed in their fans.

Look, I'll lend you a clue, and if it works for you I'll let you keep it.

How do you know what I believe? There's the bad, and there's the worse... and the GOP is definitely the worse. And, what sort of "team" should I consider the Dems to be, considering how many of them voted for that same resolution. Yeah, I checked. That's what people who use critical thinking skills do.

 

[corplinx]

So did Congress pass a resolution condemning the morons who attacked a decorated war hero John Kerry?

Oh no, Bush and the republican congress were awfully silent then.

The problem was the Swifties had a very slick campaign that sounded really credible at the time. Most people didn't know what to make of it and that worked to the swifties advantage. It didn't matter if later the truth would come out, they just had to keep doubts about Kerry's service in play until the election.

McCain denounced the ads and called on Bush to as well. Bush however was too busy doing tequila shooters with the homeys.

 

[corplinx]

Look, I'll lend you a clue, and if it works for you I'll let you keep it.

Try coming up with an insight that impresses me instead of what you've shown so far.

GOP SUCKS is not original nor insightful. Its more like stating "SKY IS BLUE".

Which is to say, you display a childlike view of the topic that merely skims the surface of it and don't show any real deep analytical view of it.