New attack on NeoCons

[DngrRuss]

Okay, it's been awhile since I've posted. I have not inflamed anyone's sensibilities lately, so i thought I would start a new thread to annoy the right:soapbox:

So, I came across this video and thought I would post it for a bit of lively discussion. http://www.ifilms.tv/votevetsweb/

 

[michaeledward]

527 Organizations are a shameful way of hiding campaign financing. This is true for all voices in the political spectrum.

Also, the advertisement targets Senator Allen from Virginia; he of recent Macaca fame. Of the many things the left might accuse Senator Allen, being a NeoCon is not one of them.

Of course, you notice that most of the NeoCons have scattered back to their darkness ... any one seen Mr. Perle recently? Mr. Wolfowitz? Mr. Hadley?

Only Kristol is left trying to place sandbags against the incoming tide.

 

[Makalakumu]

Of course, you notice that most of the NeoCons have scattered back to their darkness ... any one seen Mr. Perle recently? Mr. Wolfowitz? Mr. Hadley?

It's how they operate...from behind the scenes. That way none of them will take the flak. BTW - did any of you vote for any of those guys mentioned above?

I wonder who they'll leech onto next...

 

[FearlessFreep]

I wonder if the things getting voted for or against are neccessarily intended to be for or against what they end up being accuesed of

Like in the video, did the Senator Allen (whm I kno wnothing about) actually vote against buying that specific gear? Or did he vote against an appropriations bill that would've been for money for the Army to replace some gear and since the Army didn't get the money they hoped for, they opted not otp replace the body armor, amongst other things. And now we have troops in harms way with out-dated equipment, etc.., etc..and it comes back to the people who voted against the appropriations bill are accuesed of voting against modern body armor for troops in a war.

I don't know the answer to that, I just wonder sometimes when I see/hear poltical ads about "Senator Muckymuck voted against puppies and old widows" I sometimes wonder what they really voted for or against versus how it's being portrayed.

 

[michaeledward]

I wonder if the things getting voted for or against are neccessarily intended to be for or against what they end up being accuesed of

Like in the video, did the Senator Allen (whm I kno wnothing about) actually vote against buying that specific gear? Or did he vote against an appropriations bill that would've been for money for the Army to replace some gear and since the Army didn't get the money they hoped for, they opted not otp replace the body armor, amongst other things. And now we have troops in harms way with out-dated equipment, etc.., etc..and it comes back to the people who voted against the appropriations bill are accuesed of voting against modern body armor for troops in a war.

I don't know the answer to that, I just wonder sometimes when I see/hear poltical ads about "Senator Muckymuck voted against puppies and old widows" I sometimes wonder what they really voted for or against versus how it's being portrayed.

I remember clearly hearing this same defense from the right when discussing Senator Kerry's records .... you know that "he was for it before he was against it" .... it's nice that the arguments are consistant.

You were defending Senator Kerry's voting record two years ago, weren't you FearlessFreep?

 

[mrhnau]

527 Organizations are a shameful way of hiding campaign financing. This is true for all voices in the political spectrum.

thanks McCain and campaign finance reform!

Money does not go away. It just shifts sources and methods of transfer.

 

[FearlessFreep]

You were defending Senator Kerry's voting record two years ago, weren't you FearlessFreep?

Not that I recall. If it came up in a thread, I don't remember it and therefore don't remember what I might have said. I hope that doesn't sound like an attempt to evade but I don't recall having much opinion on his voting record one way or the other, unless it came up in a situation like this where I was talking more about how it was spun than what he actually voted

 

[michaeledward]

There is another way.

Don't know if this country will be able to recognize that before we have destroyed ourselves. Here's something to think about:

Money = Money
Speech = Speech

How did we get to the point where "Money = Speech"?

 

[mrhnau]

There is another way.

Don't know if this country will be able to recognize that before we have destroyed ourselves. Here's something to think about:

Money = Money
Speech = Speech

How did we get to the point where "Money = Speech"?

How about Speech = Money. You pay for advertisements for your campaign. Whats so different between paying for a commercial and getting on talk shows on radio/tv? You are getting advertisement for "free" where others still need to pay for it.

Also, "normal" people don't have an opportunity to speak to the general popular or otherwise have their opinion heard. So, by supporting someone who can get a bigger audience and actually run for office, they can turn their money into speech (advertisement). Or at least they used to be able to. In this case, Money = Speech.

 

[michaeledward]

mrhnau, you are aware that both variables on opposite sides of an equal sign are the same? That the order in which they appear is irrelevant to the factual basis of the statement.

Money = Speech .... is the same thing as ..... Speech = Money

You seem to be arguing that there is a difference.



I'm wondering ... who owns the broadcast spectrum of airwaves?

 

[mrhnau]

mrhnau, you are aware that both variables on opposite sides of an equal sign are the same? That the order in which they appear is irrelevant to the factual basis of the statement.

Money = Speech .... is the same thing as ..... Speech = Money

You seem to be arguing that there is a difference.

I'm wondering ... who owns the broadcast spectrum of airwaves?

This is not a math equation.

would you argue that

Dog = ugly

is the same as

ugly = dog

That seems faulty logic. Given this is not math, I can translate Dog = ugly to "The Dog is ugly" or Ugly = Dog to "Ugly is dog", which I think noone would argue. *scratches head* or something like that.

who owns the airways? Used to be the major broadcasting agencies. Now there are a good many voices, especially if you consider blogs and the rest of the internet. I think thats why some people are upset about the increased variety of news agencies/voices. No longer monochrome. However, the most listen to voices still tend to lean liberal, though its been changing in recent years...

 

[crushing]

Okay, it's been awhile since I've posted. I have not inflamed anyone's sensibilities lately, so i thought I would start a new thread to annoy the right:soapbox:

So, I came across this video and thought I would post it for a bit of lively discussion. http://www.ifilms.tv/votevetsweb/

I think you will succeed in annoying the right. Mostly because you appear to be using 'the right' and 'neocons' as synonyms.

 

[michaeledward]

This is not a math equation.

would you argue that

Dog = ugly

is the same as

ugly = dog

That seems faulty logic. Given this is not math, I can translate Dog = ugly to "The Dog is ugly" or Ugly = Dog to "Ugly is dog", which I think noone would argue. *scratches head* or something like that.

who owns the airways? Used to be the major broadcasting agencies. Now there are a good many voices, especially if you consider blogs and the rest of the internet. I think thats why some people are upset about the increased variety of news agencies/voices. No longer monochrome. However, the most listen to voices still tend to lean liberal, though its been changing in recent years...

We don't need to be doing mathematics to understand the definition of 'equal'. I don't need to translate the symbol "=", it means what it means. That items on either side of the symbol are the same. You seem to be attempting to mis-translate the symbol "=" to be the word "is". Are you bringing out your inner Clinton?

The word "is" denotes existance. The symbol "=" denotes equal.

That aside ...

The broadcast spectrum airwaves are owned by the American People. They are used, in our trust, by the broadcast networks under license. That license must be renewed on a regular basis. The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to regulate the behavior of those license holders on our behalf.

If you don't understand that the airwaves belong to us, you can never comprehend the next step in the discussion.

ABC - CBS - NBS - PBS - They all broadcast over MY airwaves and over YOUR airwaves. Why do Disney, General Electric and Viacom get to earn profit from our airwaves, during election season for our leaders?

 

[DngrRuss]

I think you will succeed in annoying the right. Mostly because you appear to be using 'the right' and 'neocons' as synonyms.

You and MichaelWard are correct and I stand corrected regarding labeling Allen as a NeoCon.

Though I am enjoying watching this discussion go from the admonition of the BS "only Republicans love America and the military" rhetoric and propaganda pumped out by the current administration and its supporters addressed in the ad in question, to ugly dogs in only 10 posts.

I am becoming more and more entertained by the goings-on in government- from local politics all the way to the Beltway, and beyond. It's like sitting back and watching "Shaun of the Dead": enough spooks and gore to keep you on the edge of your seat, but plenty of tasteless humor to go around.