NY Times Discounts Moveon.org Betray Us Ad!

[smelter]

so if xyz website paid 65k to the nyt and ran an ad that said

HILLARY CLINTON IS A CARPET MUNCHING LESBIAN

that would be ok?

character assasination would be an ok ad?

uh huh

i'll bet

No, that ad would be placed in a Rupert Murdoch paper .... and he would probably do it gratis.

 

[letme]

so if xyz website paid 65k to the nyt and ran an ad that said

HILLARY CLINTON IS A CARPET MUNCHING LESBIAN

that would be ok?

Chance I would like to say yes,,but that would an open case for a Liable suit.
but in the blogs.......Did ya know Conni is a S/M lezbo Dominic ? She butt fucks GW with a dildo,after hilary eats her out ?

film @ 11:00 print @ 5:00

 

[Andreus]

if its not about race creed sex or sexual orientation its fair game

if the contract was negotiated in advance it was just a standard business deal

this is not an issue of any substance

 

[letme]

^^ cost to the U.S. Parks Dept. to replace weed eaters after hitting John Kerry's medals littered on the lawn.. $400.00 More Government waste.
sarcastic spoken weed eaters were not around back then.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^^ cost to the U.S. Parks Dept. to replace weed eaters after hitting John Kerry's medals littered on the lawn.. $400.00

A reason for letme to post something pointless....priceless.

 

[chance1]

this is not an issue of any substance

u would be .........

WRONG

this is an issue of tremendous substance

that actually is a great barometer for where people stand

on right and wrong

I love the freedom of speech play - the default for bad taste - bad decisions - bad faith

love it

 

[Andreus]

thanks for your opinion

after comparing it to mine, i have ellected to keep the better idea of the two

that being mine.....

that means that

you are

WRONG


ooohhhhh.... i think its an official pissing match

hehe

ok chance ... thanks for playing... lets let some of the other folks use the thread for a bit

liek the new avatar BTW

 

[chance1]

liek the new avatar BTW

wow - that disarmed me

good tactic

 

[jackoroe]

Of course the NYT is free to print whatever they want. I've defended their right to do so even when they may have compromised national security when doing it. The government must never dictate what can and cannot be published.

But the NYT has a societal responsibility to censor themselves. To make value judgements about stories and ads. If the NYT wants to continue to be a relevant news source, they need to sell newspapers. Something they are getting worse at.

This ad was offensive to the average Joe on the street. People have great faith in the military to get the job done (68%) as opposed to Congress (21%) and the President (5%). Attacking a four star general, who is commanding our Iraqi operations doesn't set well with America. It wasn't an honest discussion about ending the war, moveon.org called the general "General Betray Us." They simply called David Patreaus a traitor to his country.

The NYT had to understand this. Yet they took the ad AND did so at a reduced rate. Now that may or may not have been a business decision. I do thank Andreus for providing his experience as it relates to these matters. But it certainly was not a prudent business decision.

The ad has become this weeks focus, instead of the general's testimony. Moveon.org has proven to be an embarrassment to the dims because of this ad and their pathetic behavior at the hearings. The dims have failed to make hay or progress on the war, yet again.

 

[chance1]

This bee in your bonnet is just so fucking ridiculous, as are most of your panic attacks. Where were you when that other whack job, Ann Coulter, was calling a candidate for the presidency a "FAGGOT?" Where was your outrage then? Face it, when one of your fellow crazy people go off the rails, you have no problem, but if a liberal political action group roughs-up someone, OMFG, your twat swells and lubricates itself with anger. There's something real, real sick about that.




I see Iowa needs a few billion dollars in emergency education aid...

dude - I actually love that the NYT did this - it shows to everyone where they stand - instead of pretending they don't stand where they stand

of course they ran the ad - it is part of their dna

I have taken Coulter to task - read ur posts doggie - do ur homework - I think she's smart but sucks eggs and have said so on more than one occasion - another diff between 80's and 20's - we don't drink ALL the kool aid just some - u drink it ALL (or lap it maybe)

come on alfie - give me something better than i defend Ann cause I don't

gonna hit the gym - when i come back i wanna see something with substance

OK?

 

[letme]

LapDog thanks for pointing out the only spelling err you could ever find me making.(and IC)

This bee in your bonnet is just so fucking ridiculous, as are most of your panic attacks. Where were you when that other whack job, Ann Coulter, was calling a candidate for the presidency a "FAGGOT?" Where was your outrage then? Face it, when one of your fellow crazy people go off the rails, you have no problem, but if a liberal political action group roughs-up someone, OMFG, your twat swells and lubricates itself with anger. There's something real, real sick about that.

As to this sick vile fucking thing you said to Chance. You have really lost the 1% respect you have had from me. You are sick. I am so impressed that Chance is so steadfast. I am not sure I would be.

 

[atswimtwoboys]

OMFG, your twat swells and lubricates itself with anger. There's something real, real sick about that.

As to this sick vile fucking thing you said to Chance. You have really lost the 1% respect you have had from me. You are sick. I am so impressed that Chance is so steadfast. I am not sure I would be.

Actually, I was just going to post that this was the funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[atswimtwoboys]

I'm truly amazed when people put forth the idea that the NYT is somehow the American equivalent of Pravda. Can we get this through our heads: the NYT isn't some rabid far-left rag. For Chrissakes, both David Brooks and Thomas Friedman have regular columns. And may I type the name Judith Martin as an additional point of reference.

I don't see how taking money from a public interest group with 3.2 million members (so much for it being a whack political website, Chance) to run an opinion ad somehow reveals the paper's secret agenda. (That agenda being, oh um, something or the other.) As for the "discount," you know, I've bought ads too and periodicals frequently offer deals on their posted rates.

As for the ad itself, I don't see what was so wrong. Are people that credulous that they simply can't believe that a high-ranking military figure might trash his reputation for political goals? Are people's memories really that short? Have they forgotten, for example, the sight of Colin Powell going on and on at the UN about the imminent threat of Hussein, complete with Powell's party piece, a vial of fake anthrax he flourished. Of course, he later admitted that it was all made up. Oops.

For the record, most Americans didn't believe General P was going to tell the truth anyway
(Wide Skepticism Ahead of Assessment
Poll Respondents Doubt Petraeus Will Give True Picture of Situation in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801777_pf.html)

I'd be more likely to believe the seven soldiers who wrote that powerful opinion piece in the NYT not long ago and to hear more from what they all had to say. Tragically, that won't be possible since two of them were killed the first day the General appeared before the committee:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62370/

 

[chance1]

Has anyone considered that perhaps Moveon.org got a discount because it is a non-profit organization? Moveon is non-profit, right?

I think they profit from the misery of others ........

 

[RandomAccess]

I think they profit from the misery of others ........

"Others?" You?

 

[snapcat]

The ad has become this weeks focus, instead of the general's testimony.

My point exactly ... although the talking heads only gave it a notice for about a day. Those of us here have kept the subject alive longer than the pundits on tv.

 

[chance1]

My point exactly ... although the talking heads only gave it a notice for about a day. Those of us here have kept the subject alive longer than the pundits on tv.

the "talking heads" for the most part are liberal shills

it is in their best interest to "move on"

Interesting how the NYT gave such a DISCOUNT to u know who

very interesting

very telling

very transparent

very bad

I love this story

it is one of those things that clarifies the sitch - for ALL to see

so when so many say "the NYT is not biased" - u just have to laugh at the absurdity .........

 

[chance1]

^ well giuliani got his discount so ...............

moot point

and moveon.org attacking general petreaus is very diff from swifties going after kerry - if i remember correctly, senator kerry did not defend himself well - his actions post war were not so good - did not put him in good stead with many - his actions during the war were questioned and frankly still are - he's no victim

he portrayed himself as a hero - and took his lumps

general petreaus is explaining what is going on in iraq - what we're doing - what we need to do

apples and oranges alfred

great case of it too

 

[chance1]

^ the public loathes bush

is all

they don't know petreaus

and moveon.org made their putrid case BEFORE he testified

BEFORE

if i'm in the minority on this one, i can deal - i don't think so

if they took a poll "was that an appropriate ad?" - i'll bet the resounding answer would be NO

not that cnn would take that poll

and fyi

ur putdowns just don't have the same ooomph

i would regroup and come back strong maybe next week refreshed

 

[Centexfarmer]

We need to just deal with the fact that the MoveOn.org ad did nothing but give the GOP and the pro-war crowd something to howl about, while distracting from the fact that parts of the surge are working, but the most crucial political elements are not.

Bush is polling somewhere in the low 20s? Congress is lower? But as I recall Petreaus' numbers were in the 60's at the time that he gave his testimony.

It backfired!

It did not have it's intended results, and if anything it cost MoveOn.org some much needed support. Especially those who expect that organization to "MOVE ON," and not engage in the same type of shit that Karl Rove is known for.

To quote a member on this forum....

That's a FACT JACK!