Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
fish'nmagician

Moveon

Rate this topic

24 posts in this topic

Is it still a viable website?!!?

 

I've seen a couple posts here about how the "Betrayus" thing was just taken down yesterday. So I logged on.

 

I wasn't sure what to expect but what I found wasn't it.

 

the front page has a link to their 2009 goals,

 

and hitting the archives button puts you into a way back machine trying to rally support against Bush/Gonzales domestic spying.

 

seems like a non starter to me.

and I can't imagine WHO goes there, or cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostIs it still a viable website?!!?

 

I've seen a couple posts here about how the "Betrayus" thing was just taken down yesterday. So I logged on.

 

I wasn't sure what to expect but what I found wasn't it.

 

the front page has a link to their 2009 goals,

 

and hitting the archives button puts you into a way back machine trying to rally support against Bush/Gonzales domestic spying.

 

seems like a non starter to me.

and I can't imagine WHO goes there, or cares.

 

 

I ain't never been there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostI ain't never been there.

 

 

I can't say with certainty that I haven't, when it was new and in the news I might have went just to see what it was.

 

I can say with certainty that I haven't been in years,

and that a couple visits if any are all I have under my belt.

 

but since we were talking about them with the Betrayus story, I thought I'd check it out.

 

my guess is that the Betrayus was in the archives.

and when he got the appointment someone decided to do a little housecleaning and dumped the old story.

 

I'm not sure what suprises me more,

that the story was there,

or that someone monitors when they clean their archived stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Added text, removed the link

 

The MoveOn ad controversy began when the anti-war liberal advocacy group MoveOn published a full-page ad in The New York Times on September 10, 2007 accusing General David H. Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House". The ad also labeled him "General Betray Us".[1] The organization created the ad in response to Petraeus' Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. Move On hosted pages on its website about the ad and their reasons behind it from 2007 to June 23, 2010. On June 23, 2010, Move On erased these webpages and any reference to them from its website[2]after President Obama nominated General Petraeus to be the new top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan on June 23, 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostNever heard of it till today

 

 

moveon serves as the boogie man for the right.

Partisan right wingers can cull rather extreme views from moveon and attribute them to "liberals"

 

as to those of us on the left.

I don't think many actually visit the site or support it.

at least nobody I know does.

 

it certainly provides far more ammo to be used AGAINST the left, than it provides TO the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is known as "whistling past the graveyard."

The above thread (Betrayus) contains a list of US Senators that support moveon and agree with their condemnation of General Petreus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThis is known as "whistling past the graveyard."

The above thread (Betrayus) contains a list of US Senators that support moveon and agree with their condemnation of General Petreus.

 

 

was not voting to confirm Petreus deemed "supporting moveon"?

or did they actually support moveon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Postmoveon serves as the boogie man for the right.

Partisan right wingers can cull rather extreme views from moveon and attribute them to "liberals"

 

as to those of us on the left.

I don't think many actually visit the site or support it.

at least nobody I know does.

 

it certainly provides far more ammo to be used AGAINST the left, than it provides TO the left.

 

Your own Senator supports Moveon, as evidenced by his vote in this matter. Your Senator.

Hey wait, are you Frank Lautenberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it certainly provides far more ammo to be used AGAINST the left, than it provides TO the left.
True - they have no "stones".

 

 

As far as moveon being of no consequence or of limited interest - since they are a 501c, (used to be a 527) the donor rolls should be accessable.

 

 

5 million members since 1998 - not too shabby

 

 

According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004:

 

"The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier
George Soros
who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors);
Peter B. Lewis
, chief executive of the
Progressive Corp.
, who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and
Linda Pritzker
, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her
Sustainable World Corp.
, who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee."
[16]

 

MoveOn ceased receiving any donations to its 527 after the 2004 election, and closed the 527 permanently in 2008. MoveOn's primary source of funding is its members. MoveOn raised nearly 60 million dollars in 2004 from its members, with an average donation of $50.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Postwas not voting to confirm Petreus deemed "supporting moveon"?

or did they actually support moveon?

 

 

It was nothing more than a political stunt. Congress should not be voting on faux legislation aimed at stifling free speech. Any conservative should be against the bill. It was just a distgusting display of partisanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post

5 million members since 1998 - not too shabby

 

 

so in 12 years they had 5 million members.... that seems pretty low,

since they are being labeled as the major left wing mouthpiece.

 

but I don't care how active they were YEARS ago,

I visited today,

and it doesn't seem like a thriving enterprise.

or even something that ANYONE is putting time into.

 

hence my thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostIt was nothing more than a political stunt. Congress should not be voting on faux legislation aimed at stifling free speech. Any conservative should be against the bill. It was just a distgusting display of partisanship.

 

 

ah,

I thought he was talking about a vote to confirm petreus.

so what was this faux legislation about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.