Moveon.org apologizes for Bush/Hitler comparison..

[BTox]

They oughta move on, alright, after this gaffe. I'd swear they have some members posting here...

moveon apologizes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=9&u=/nm/20040106/od_nm/politics_hitler_dc)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by BTox
They oughta move on, alright, after this gaffe. I'd swear they have some members posting here...

moveon apologizes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=9&u=/nm/20040106/od_nm/politics_hitler_dc)

This is what pisses me off the most about Bush's opposition is that they don't try to attack him on the issues but they pull off sophomoric stunts like this in an attempt to make themselves look better. This kinds of "hahaha I make video of Bush's speeches out of context to make him look like Hitler!" is not helping anyone and reinforces the other extreme's point of view.

[Cleon]

In fairness to MoveOn.org, with whom I don't agree on many things, the ads in question were not made by them; they were part of a contest asking the general public to create anti-Bush ads and were posted as contest entries.

They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.

[Demigorgon]

They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.

Like pyschics use the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer.

A webmaster had to upload that himself. "Slipped by" my @$$.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cleon
In fairness to MoveOn.org, with whom I don't agree on many things, the ads in question were not made by them; they were part of a contest asking the general public to create anti-Bush ads and were posted as contest entries.

They might be in bad taste, but they weren't backed or endorsed by Moveon.org.

Well considering they picked their judges for the ads I'd have to say I'm still in doubt. I mean Al Franken, Michael Moore and James Carville aren't exactly known for their subtlety

[Cain]

Not until the middle of the article do you get some idea of what happened:

Neither of the two ads was ever aired on TV and by Monday had been removed from the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Web site (www.bushin30seconds.org) set up by the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.

The head of the Voter Fund, Wes Boyd, said his group posted more than 1,500 entries in all submitted by "ordinary Americans" and that the two Hitler spots "slipped through our screening process."

"None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund," Boyd's statement said. "We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions."

He accused Republican leaders of a "maliciously misleading" attempt to cast the two Hitler ads as sponsored by his group.

The posts here suggest that Moveon created and ran the ads, then pulled them after opposition. In fact they took submissions and put these two ads up in addition to 1500 others on their website. MoveOn the organization never endorsed the ads.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cain
Not until the middle of the article do you get some idea of what happened:

Neither of the two ads was ever aired on TV and by Monday had been removed from the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Web site (www.bushin30seconds.org) set up by the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.

That's all well known. So what? It's hardly surprising that when you tout a panel of extremist judges, you get extremist entries like this one.



The posts here suggest that Moveon created and ran the ads, then pulled them after opposition. In fact they took submissions and put these two ads up in addition to 1500 others on their website. MoveOn the organization never endorsed the ads.

Who says they produced it or aired it? Which "posts here"? By uploading to their website they have endorsed their critical approval of it, in my opinion. Would they have allowed entries that used racist language or pornography? I mean, since it's all Constitutionally protected material, there should be no difference, right? It's all about free speech, right?

The obvious answer is that they would not have allowed otherwise obscene material in the entries, so entries that were posted have passed some kind of muster, which implies artistic endorsement. That, and the "end justifies the means" (or rather, the "agenda justifies the slander") attitude shown by liars like Moore and Carville makes it very easy for them to pick and choose which obscenities they like.

[a_unique_person]

He accused Republican leaders of a "maliciously misleading" attempt to cast the two Hitler ads as sponsored by his group.


Nevertheless, the leaders of three major Jewish groups -- the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- roundly criticized MoveOn for placing the Hitler ads on the Internet.


They and Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie all seized on MoveOn.org's own pledge in the ground rules for its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest not to "post anything that would be in inappropriate for television."


"To compare the president of the United States, his fight against al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), with the politics of Hitler is ... shameful, it is beyond the pale, and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center



So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

[American]

The website's biggest contributor, George Soros, stated that he views Bush like Hitler. Very lame and desperate, trying to retract the message now.

[Cain]

That's all well known. So what? It's hardly surprising that when you tout a panel of extremist judges, you get extremist entries like this one.

Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?

Who says they produced it or aired it? Which "posts here"?

Read a little closer. I said the posts "suggest" moveon.org created and ran the ads. See the first two posts (until Cleon clarified). Or look at the first half of the article.

By uploading to their website they have endorsed their critical approval of it, in my opinion.

Well, I disagree. If they chose these ads as the winners, then sure, you can say they endorsed them.

The obvious answer is that they would not have allowed otherwise obscene material in the entries, so entries that were posted have passed some kind of muster, which implies artistic endorsement.

Yes, they passed a preliminary screening, and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cain


Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?


Yes, they passed a preliminary screening, and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?

If the judges are not screening the ads then contestants should sue for improper contest rules. Why have judges or contestants if all entries are not to be judged equally and fairly before a winner is picked?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Cain


Do you really think the judges they "touted" are screening the ads? Do you think Al Franken, James Carville, or Michael Moore saw these ads and approved of them?

Well, they are the judges. Do the math.



Read a little closer. I said the posts "suggest" moveon.org created and ran the ads. See the first two posts (until Cleon clarified). Or look at the first half of the article.

You read closer, hotshot. I said show me where. I see no such example.

Well, I disagree. If they chose these ads as the winners, then sure, you can say they endorsed them.

Not on point, Cain. I said, would they have allowed racist or pornographic ENTRIES, not winners. You can disagree all you like. Hell, I'm waiting for you to disagree with gravity.


Yes, they passed a preliminary screening...

BINGO! Half a page later and the point is finally addressed.

...and MoveOn apologized for that. Who do you think more likely put them into that pool, Al Franken or a coffee jockey volunteer college student?

If I were running the website, I'd make sure it was someone whose judgment I trusted... wouldn't you?

[Cain]

If the judges are not screening the ads then contestants should sue for improper contest rules. Why have judges or contestants if all entries are not to be judged equally and fairly before a winner is picked?


Originally posted by Jocko
[B]

Well, they are the judges. Do the math.

What do you mean "Do the math"? Also that's the stupidest expression in the english language. Well, I was doing a term paper while studying for French and, oh, you do the math.

They are the judges. Celebrity judges. They're not going to view over one-thousand different spots. The voters for the Academy don't view every single feature film that was released to a theaters for a paying audience (although that's the only criteria, theoretically, for winning an Oscar).

[B]
You read closer, hotshot. I said show me where. I see no such example.

I cited three instances, smart guy.

Not on point, Cain. I said, would they have allowed racist or pornographic ENTRIES, not winners. You can disagree all you like. Hell, I'm waiting for you to disagree with gravity.


BINGO! Half a page later and the point is finally addressed.

Are you bloody mad? How do you think an initial screening process works. They give lackeys a general outline. If the ad uses the word "f*ck", don't include it. If it says something racist or reveals bare breasts, don't add it to the pool.


If I were running the website, I'd make sure it was someone whose judgment I trusted... wouldn't you?

Yes, but that does not guarantee that person will never mess up. CNN posted obituaries for people who were alive at the time. Cheney, Reagan, Bob Hope.

View the ads that are up right now. Presumably, those are the ones the celebrities will judge. After they pick one, and air it on television, you can correctly criticize it as being endorsed and supported by MoveOn.org/

[NoZed Avenger]

I have not had a chance to read the links -- just fill me in:

Was the apology to Hitler for linking him with Bush?


N/A

(Just my guess based on past releases from the site)

[corplinx]

I read a story about this on FoxNews.com and the moveon.org people explained it thoroughly. It made me think that it was a non-issue. Of course, the Fox shows portrayed it differently.This story at the right wing pravda FoxNews makes me think this whole thing is a nonissue and has been overblown. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107426,00.html)


Ain't it ironic? I think moveon is pretty articulate in their response in the article and I don't even think they should apologize if its true.

[Demigorgon]

The thing is, it had to be viewed by someone at moveon.org before it was uploaded to the website. Therefore someone there approved of it. It was a ploy to get and draw attention to their website, which it did. Notice with all those submissions, no porn seemed to "slip through", which means they were paying attention.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
The thing is, it had to be viewed by someone at moveon.org before it was uploaded to the website. Therefore someone there approved of it. It was a ploy to get and draw attention to their website, which it did. Notice with all those submissions, no porn seemed to "slip through", which means they were paying attention.

Try telling Cain that. He's built an elaborate palace of excuses out of conjecture and ridiculous assumptions.

If they hosted the file, they're responsible. Period. Judging from the company they keep, they ought to acknowledge it and be proud of it. I mean, it's no secret that Carville, Moore and Franken think Bush is satan. I think it ought to have been the winner since it so accurately sums up their collective feelings.

[BTox]

1 star thread? Dang, I was hoping for no stars...

[Cain]

Try telling Cain that. He's built an elaborate palace of excuses out of conjecture and ridiculous assumptions.

:rolleyes: Two videos out of over 1500 made it onto their site. They apologized. Which of the ten or fifteen finalists do you find objectionable?

At the yearly conservative convention. I forget what it's called, the AIPC, or something. Cheney's attended twice, it's where Coulter said we need to execute John Walker Lindh in order to "physically intimidate liberals by making them realize they can be killed too." During the Clinton years you could purchase all kinds of clever bumperstickers saying things like "Where's Oswald when you need him" or suggestions that Hillary C. was a lesbian.

If they hosted the file, they're responsible. Period. Judging from the company they keep, they ought to acknowledge it and be proud of it. I mean, it's no secret that Carville, Moore and Franken think Bush is satan. I think it ought to have been the winner since it so accurately sums up their collective feelings.

Again, they apologized. I don't believe there's anything in FCC rules outlawing comparisons between Bush and Hitler. The ad could, theoretically, run. If it contained pornography or one of the banned words, then it could not. It's reasonable to assume that underlyings

Quote from the Fox article linked above:

MoveOn.org noted that those ads were voted down by the group's members and the public, who submitted nearly 3 million critiques while choosing the 15 finalist entries.

"We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process," the statement said. "In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system."

[epepke]

A base canard.

Hitler improved the economy.

[a_unique_person]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


He accused Republican leaders of a "maliciously misleading" attempt to cast the two Hitler ads as sponsored by his group.


Nevertheless, the leaders of three major Jewish groups -- the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- roundly criticized MoveOn for placing the Hitler ads on the Internet.


They and Republican National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Ed Gillespie all seized on MoveOn.org's own pledge in the ground rules for its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest not to "post anything that would be in inappropriate for television."


"To compare the president of the United States, his fight against al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), with the politics of Hitler is ... shameful, it is beyond the pale, and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Once again. What has the Simon Wiesethal Center got to do with this? The only connection I can see here is that Hitler was mentioned, and that the SWC must own his copyright in perpetuity or something. You cannot mention hitler without their OK or paying a royalty.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So who asked him, and what right does he have to censor free speech that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?


After looking at the information, I think that the issue has been overblown. There is a valid point about moveon posting the message after a review, but I am willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Having said that, it seems to me that your definition of "censor" must be a bit different than mine. He criticized their action and gave his opinion on it. Moveon was (and is) quite free to continue posting the ad if they want to -- I don't see where the Center has censored anything.

As far as who asked for his/their opinion, can't the same question be asked about your opinion of the Center? "Who asked [you], and what right do [you] have to censor free speech. . . "?

You are not censoring him through your criticism of his opinion than he is censoring moveon through his.

N/A

[Skeptic]

So who asked him

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that a jew shouldn't speak unless spoken to. A jew expressing an opinion BY HIMSELF WITHOUT BEING ASKED??? Shocking. Those "hebes" REALLY don't know their place anymore, do they, AUP?

and what right does he have to censor free speech

He hasn't "censored" anybody. He was simply excercising HIS right to free speech--just like moveon.com did-- and expressed his opinion that these ads are disgusting.

Of course, for you, a jew expressing an opinion against something is the same thing as "jewish censorship"--because, God forbid, it might cause some reaction AGAINST that issue based merely on the word of a jew! And we can't have that, can we? This is proof of the "evil jewish control of the world"...

For you, "jewish cenorship" means "a jew using his free speech to protest against something"--a right that everybody else (except the jews) takes for granted. You don't really think jews have the right to free speech or to speak for themselves unless asked.

At MOST, you graciously "allow" the jews to have the right to speak... provided that their free speech does not result in any change whatsoever, because any such change is, by definition, "censorship". If a web site had compared Bush to a KKK grand dragon and blacks protested and made the web site drop the ad as being in poor taste, this is a "civil rights victory". But if jews use their free speech to protest the comparing of Bush to Hitler and the web site involved agrees the ad was in poor taste, THAT is "censorship of free speech" and proof of the "jewish control of the media"...

that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Jews have no right to speak about things that "have nothing to do with attacking jews". Unlike most people, who have a right to express an opinion on any issue they wish, jews should keep quiet and not intefere with things that don't conerned them directly--that is, anything that isn't concerned with "attacking jews". Nobody is arranging a progrom at the moment? Then those annoying jews should just shut the hell up. As you say, who asked THEM?

And, of course, jews should ESPECIALLY stop expressing their unwanted opinions on such heavy issues of the day like like American presidential elections; whatever makes them think it's any of THEIR business, just because they are American citizens? They should leave such issues to you--who commented extensively on Bush and the American elections in this forum--and other gentiles to discuss. Of course, you are an Australian and don't have any direct say in it... but at least you're not a jew.

And, for the record, you of course completely missed the REAL reason for the protest against the ads. The reason was that to use Hitler to attack Bush minimizes Hitler's crimes, by falsely claiming that they are comparable to Bush's (alleged) misdeeds. To claim Bush "is a nazi" is to spit in the face of those victims of the nazis, who know very well that there is no comparison whatsoever between what Bush does wrong--even if all the allegations against him are true--and what the nazis did.

So, it IS, quite obviously, something that DOES concern the jews. So, Mr. AUP, Sir, DO us jews have your permission to talk about it? Let me know; I don't want to stick my (long) nose into things that don't concern me by daring to have an opinion about non-jewish matters, your honor, Sir.

[Lurker]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.


Lurker

[Skeptic]

I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.

Two reasons:

1). First of all, the comparison in this ad is not to any old bad guy, but to Mr. H himself--which automatically creates a big stirr every time he's mentioned in ANY context. Hitler is a rating magnet; do you think it's a coincidence half of the History channel's stuff is about him? (The "H" in their channel's name should really be something else).

2). The democrats were smart enough not to draw attention to those ads, since doing so simply gives them far more exposure than they would otherwise get. Like in this case: at least 100 times as many people now saw these "Bush is Hitler" ads than would have otherwise. If only 2% of them agree with it, it's twice as many sympathetic viewes than the ad got before.

I agree that the protest of this silly ad was overhyped, despite the fact that it WAS obviously insulting to both Bush and Hitler's victims. But what the hell do I know... I'm just a jew, and, as AUP said, I really shouldn't express my opinion about stuff that doesn't concern me. After all, who asks me?

[Lurker]

1). First of all, the comparison in this ad is not to any old bad guy, but to Mr. H himself--which automatically creates a big stirr every time he's mentioned in ANY context. Hitler is a rating magnet; do you think it's a coincidence half of the History channel's stuff is about him? (The "H" in their channel's name should really be something else).



I guess Hitler's fate is to always be the modern Satan. Can't get any worse than Hitler, right?

All the same, I don't think it fair to let the RNC off the hook for doing something similar. Did Hannity complain about those ads like he about the Moveon website? I didn't think so.

Lurker

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by BTox
They oughta move on, alright, after this gaffe. I'd swear they have some members posting here...

moveon apologizes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=9&u=/nm/20040106/od_nm/politics_hitler_dc)

Agreed, they should have apologized and I hope they never do such a thing again.

I have no problem, or anyone else, being critical of the President, but they should stick to the facts and avoid inflammatory personalizations.

Ugh!

[NoZed Avenger]

- Deleted Double Post -


Mods, feel free to delete/remove/spindle/mutilate.


N/A

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Lurker
I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.



I hadn't heard of it. I think that the tv ads -- being produced and purposefully aired directly by the organization -- is worse and should be roundly condemned.

N/A

[Cain]

Originally posted by Lurker
I don't approve of the Bush/Hitler ad but I wonder where the outrage was when the Republican National Comittee created and aired ads on TV that used Democrat congressman Cleland and morphed him into Osama? They did it to another Democrat as well.

Why no outrage over that? Seems along similar lines, doesn't it? And the RNC ads were on TV instead of just on some website. Big difference.


Lurker

Max Cleland is also a triple amputee Vietnam veteran portrayed as unwlling to defend America.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So who asked him

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting that a jew shouldn't speak unless spoken to. A jew expressing an opinion BY HIMSELF WITHOUT BEING ASKED??? Shocking. Those "hebes" REALLY don't know their place anymore, do they, AUP?



I couldn't give a damm how many people who happen to be Jews criticise the ads. What the hell has it to do with representatives of Jewish organisations, such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre? This is exactly the type of nonsense that Finkelstein was complaining about.



and what right does he have to censor free speech

He hasn't "censored" anybody. He was simply excercising HIS right to free speech--just like moveon.com did-- and expressed his opinion that these ads are disgusting.

Of course, for you, a jew expressing an opinion against something is the same thing as "jewish censorship"--because, God forbid, it might cause some reaction AGAINST that issue based merely on the word of a jew! And we can't have that, can we? This is proof of the "evil jewish control of the world"...

For you, "jewish cenorship" means "a jew using his free speech to protest against something"--a right that everybody else (except the jews) takes for granted. You don't really think jews have the right to free speech or to speak for themselves unless asked.

At MOST, you graciously "allow" the jews to have the right to speak... provided that their free speech does not result in any change whatsoever, because any such change is, by definition, "censorship". If a web site had compared Bush to a KKK grand dragon and blacks protested and made the web site drop the ad as being in poor taste, this is a "civil rights victory". But if jews use their free speech to protest the comparing of Bush to Hitler and the web site involved agrees the ad was in poor taste, THAT is "censorship of free speech" and proof of the "jewish control of the media"...

that has nothing to do with attacking Jews?

Oh, yes, I forgot. Jews have no right to speak about things that "have nothing to do with attacking jews". Unlike most people, who have a right to express an opinion on any issue they wish, jews should keep quiet and not intefere with things that don't conerned them directly--that is, anything that isn't concerned with "attacking jews". Nobody is arranging a progrom at the moment? Then those annoying jews should just shut the hell up. As you say, who asked THEM?

And, of course, jews should ESPECIALLY stop expressing their unwanted opinions on such heavy issues of the day like like American presidential elections; whatever makes them think it's any of THEIR business, just because they are American citizens? They should leave such issues to you--who commented extensively on Bush and the American elections in this forum--and other gentiles to discuss. Of course, you are an Australian and don't have any direct say in it... but at least you're not a jew.

And, for the record, you of course completely missed the REAL reason for the protest against the ads. The reason was that to use Hitler to attack Bush minimizes Hitler's crimes, by falsely claiming that they are comparable to Bush's (alleged) misdeeds. To claim Bush "is a nazi" is to spit in the face of those victims of the nazis, who know very well that there is no comparison whatsoever between what Bush does wrong--even if all the allegations against him are true--and what the nazis did.



Like I said, do these Jewish organisations own the copyright to Hitler? Should we be asking permission to use his name in threads on this board?



So, it IS, quite obviously, something that DOES concern the jews. So, Mr. AUP, Sir, DO us jews have your permission to talk about it? Let me know; I don't want to stick my (long) nose into things that don't concern me by daring to have an opinion about non-jewish matters, your honor, Sir.

I don't give a damm what jews say, it is the interference of Jewish organisations into matters that have nothing to do with their 'propietorship' of Hitler. Finkelstein has been shown to be right again.