Author Topic: Get your discounted ads now (Read 15960 times)

ChicosBailBonds · « **on:** September 13, 2007, 03:54:12 PM »

Full Page ad in the NY Times for normal organizations $167,157

Full Page ad in the NY Times if you're MoveOn.org and want to rip General Petraeus $65,157....a discount of $102,000.

I'm sure the Times will provide equal discounts to Republicans, conservative groups, etc. I'm sure that will happen.

By the way, the Times ended trading yesterday at $20.72, a FIVE YEAR LOW. Nice going Pinch.

Murffieus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 14, 2007, 08:38:02 AM »

The Investor's Biz Daily points out this morning that the NY Times not only allowed that "seditious ad" to be printed on the first page, but actually gave MoveOn.org a huge discount. IBD reports that the NYT dropped the price by 2/3 ($181,692 to $65,000). The Ad (encouraged by the nation's "newspaper of record") attempts to place Gen Patraeus in the same category as Benedict Arnold (have they gone mad?). But what should we expect? The Ad which was timed to coincide with Gen Petraeus's congressional testimony on the progress in the war fits very nicely with the NYT's own view of the war.

Meanwhile ads which appear regularily of late on Fox News in support of the war (I've seen them, they are not inflammatory in the least) have been turned down on CNBC and MSNBC by NBC who attempts to explain this away by citing a "network policy" of rejecting ads from groups that touch on "controversial issues of public imporatance"-----this also according to IBD!

Go Figure !

augoman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 14, 2007, 12:49:23 PM »

the nytimes shows once again why it's barely fit to wrap fish in. A paper I looked forward to reading on weekends no longer has any credibility-

Murffieus · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2007, 01:10:35 PM »

According to the AP this morning, Guiliani is going to respond with a full page ad of his own, and is asking the NY Times for the same 60% discount that moveon.org got-----we'll see what happens !

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2007, 01:13:46 PM »

tower912 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2007, 03:07:45 PM »

With the reich-wings long standing habit of tearing down decorated veterans once they espouse a position they disagree with, a la Hagel, Murtha, Kerry, Cleland, Gore, Shinseki, Powell, etc, I am amused at how "offended" they are that an advocacy group copied the tactics of the Swiftboat veterans. I thought the ad was tacky, personally, but I thought the reaction by the right was hysterical. I am also amused at how little play Admiral Fallon's opinion of General Petraeus is receiving. You would think when a general's superior officer publicly refers to him as an ass-kisser, it would get more play. But, I have always admired this administration's ability to control the story. It is their gift.

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2007, 07:07:37 PM »

Quote from: tower912 on September 23, 2007, 03:07:45 PM

With the reich-wings long standing habit of tearing down decorated veterans once they espouse a position they disagree with, a la Hagel, Murtha, Kerry, Cleland, Gore, Shinseki, Powell, etc, I am amused at how "offended" they are that an advocacy group copied the tactics of the Swiftboat veterans. I thought the ad was tacky, personally, but I thought the reaction by the right was hysterical. I am also amused at how little play Admiral Fallon's opinion of General Petraeus is receiving. You would think when a general's superior officer publicly refers to him as an ass-kisser, it would get more play. But, I have always admired this administration's ability to control the story. It is their gift.

Hilarious.

First off, the swift boat veterans were just that...veterans that served with Kerry, including several congressional medal of honor winners, bronze star, silver star, etc.

Now, if you can explain to me how MorOn.org is equivalent to those veterans, have at it. It's an open forum and I look forward to hearing how they are similar.

Avenue Commons · « **Reply #7 on:** September 24, 2007, 08:48:53 AM »

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 23, 2007, 07:07:37 PM

Quote from: tower912 on September 23, 2007, 03:07:45 PM
With the reich-wings long standing habit of tearing down decorated veterans once they espouse a position they disagree with, a la Hagel, Murtha, Kerry, Cleland, Gore, Shinseki, Powell, etc, I am amused at how "offended" they are that an advocacy group copied the tactics of the Swiftboat veterans. I thought the ad was tacky, personally, but I thought the reaction by the right was hysterical. I am also amused at how little play Admiral Fallon's opinion of General Petraeus is receiving. You would think when a general's superior officer publicly refers to him as an ass-kisser, it would get more play. But, I have always admired this administration's ability to control the story. It is their gift.

Hilarious.

First off, the swift boat veterans were just that...veterans that served with Kerry, including several congressional medal of honor winners, bronze star, silver star, etc.

Now, if you can explain to me how MorOn.org is equivalent to those veterans, have at it. It's an open forum and I look forward to hearing how they are similar.

The "Swift Boat Veterans" were a bunch of political pawns and liars. http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

tower912 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 24, 2007, 06:22:01 PM »

Well, Chico, it turns out that moveon.org wasn't even being original. They were stealing from Limbaugh and applying the phrase in a more lyrical fashion.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003

If I had realize that they were plagiarizing Limbaugh, I, too, would have been offended. I look forward to your outrage at a radio talk show host accusing a senator of betrayal. Shameful.

mviale · « **Reply #9 on:** September 24, 2007, 09:23:24 PM »

non-issue - free speech

Move On

Murffieus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 27, 2007, 06:51:17 PM »

Apples and Oranges----it's one thing to refer to the leading general in the war on terror as "General Betrayus" and completely another thing to call one of 100 Senators, Senator Betrayus" !

Hagel had himself (re-election) rather than principal in mind when he was leading the charge on the republican side of the aisle to surrender in Iraq. Since he has announced that he WON'T run for re-election, we haven't heard a peep out of him!

mviale · « **Reply #11 on:** September 27, 2007, 10:53:04 PM »

free speech Murf - since when is this off limits?

Murffieus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2007, 07:33:11 AM »

You're right "free speech"-----I'm not saying that its illegal to refer to Gen Petraeus in such a manner-----I just question the patriotism of those that print and champion such garbage.

nathanziarek · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2007, 08:11:10 AM »

its treason!!!!

these move-on traitors should be executed on tape -------- and broadcast to the Middle East as a show of our unwavering nerve!!!!

How we let "political dissent" remain alive and well in this country is an absolute mystery to me!!!!

How dare someone disagree? Don't they care about patriotism????!!!!

Murffieus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2007, 10:14:37 AM »

Prevent Offense----disagreeing is one thing, but disagreement should be accompanied by at least some respect for the other point of view-----whatever happened to the concept of "loyal opposition"?

nathanziarek · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2007, 03:17:30 PM »

you can not equate a poorly-made argument to a lack of patriotism

i have no problem with you disagreeing, thinking the ad was filth or writing a letter to the editor with your disgust. i am tired, however, of the unpatriotic idea that dissent somehow equals treason, not matter how uncivilized the language

Murffieus · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2007, 09:21:54 PM »

Moveon.org's Ad was not desent---it went far beyood desent. You say that I say it's "treason"----not so-----but it is unpatriotic. What is very wrong though is to portray General Petraeus as guilty of treason!

I ask you again----whatever has happened to the "loyal opposition" in this country!

mviale · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2007, 11:46:19 PM »

They call Lincoln a traitor when he protested our war with mexico in the 1840s when our govt claimed Mexico posed a threat to us.

They were wrong then and they are wrong today. Peace & dissension is not unpatriotic

Murffieus · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2007, 06:22:39 AM »

You mean after the slaughter at the Alamo,war with Mexico wasn't justified?
If it wasn't justified then, why not?

I don't know if you are correct or not on Lincoln being against the Mexican war, but a private citizen, Lincoln or anyone else can criticze a war------but let's not confuse Lincoln's supposed "loyal opposition" to the war with moveon.org's character assasination of the Gen Petraeus in an attempt to discredit him----he's just doing the job he was trained for-----and doing it very well by the way, which is why Moveon.org attacked him!

Moveon's NYTimes ad portraying Petraeus as guilty of treason was unpatriotic and dispicitable!!

There were citizens in our history that were against every war we've ever fought-----the other point of view is important, but let's contain that view within the boundries of "loyal opposition" !

nathanziarek · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2007, 07:55:03 AM »

Problem is, you can't specify which (legal) dissent is patriotic and which isn't.

Can you disagree? Yes. Can think that Petraeus was character assassinated? Sure. Can you believe in some misguided theory that every argument has a logical and cohesive opposite that should be respected with "loyal opposition?" I guess.

What you can not do is call legal free speech unpatriotic when in fact the very use of free speech is the most patriotic thing you can do in this country. You are falling into the trap this administration has laid so masterfully. You are either with us or against us. A patriot or a traitor.

The idea that patriotism is flag waving, yellow ribbon tying, war supporting, "rah-rah USA is number 1" is tearing at the very fabric of this country.

Patriotism is dissent...even if you disagree with the way it is written.

tower912 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2007, 09:32:00 AM »

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1140

Loyal opposition like this? I particularly like the insults directed at General Clark. How dare they?

Or support for the troops like this?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010

Murffieus · « **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2007, 04:05:16 PM »

Tower------What insults directed at General Clark?-----who took out a full page ad in the NYTimes depicting General Clark as a traitor? Who? When? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

BTW-----Your links are within the context of the "loyal opposition".

Prevent offense----we live in representative government----Bush got a vast majority of the congress (and Tony blair) to start the war (everyone saw the same intelligence), he was reelected in 2004 to manage the war as commander in chief-----his term is up in January 2009----if Hillary wins, we'll see what she can do and what the consequences are of what she does!

Every war we quit on (surrender) makes the next one harder to fight----Al Quida and Iran get a lot of their motivation from our pullout of Vietnam!

nathanziarek · « **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2007, 11:03:40 PM »

What?

The actions of Hillary or Dubya have zero impact on your use of the word "unpatriotic" to describe an organization lawfully practicing their right to free speech.

My contention here is not with the war or any other ill this country is facing. It is purely with the current conservative notion that opposition equals treason, which was summed up nicely by your calling out MoveOn as unpatriotic for their ad.

I'm not going to argue those other points with you. You don't care what I think and vise versa. But the discussion about free speech is vital. Don't change the subject to something that has no bearing.

Murffieus · « **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:27:26 AM »

I keep telling you that it isn't the opposition to the war that "equals treason" ----it's when someone or some organization places a full page add in the NYTimes depicting a very honorable man who happens to be the lead general in Iraq as guillty of treason -----this is over the top, far over the top.

Having said that ----adamant opposition to the war does give aid and comfort to the enemy (results in more dead Americans)----and this oppositions enables the enemy and motivates them to keep fighting as they believe the American will, will wain (ala pullouts of Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, etc). Their motivation is that America doesn't have the stomach for war----and it wom't be long before public opinion forces a surrender!

Thank God for GWB who gets it !

nathanziarek · « **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2007, 10:39:26 AM »

Murf, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

You can not segregate opposition into "acceptable" and "non-acceptable" and then label one patriotic and one unpatriotic.

I know that doesn't fit into the "for us" or "against us" black and white world the conservative right live in...

Was the ad over-the-top? That's a matter of personal opinion, I guess. Aside from "General Betrayus", the ad was largely an exercise in factual contradictions to the statements of the General -- hardly impugning his character.

Regardless, OVER-THE-TOP does not equate to a lack of patriotism or treason.

Murffieus · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2007, 12:08:39 PM »

You say the NYTimes ad on Gen Patraeus was OK----I supposed if you are a left winger it is OK----but the left wing continually aids and abets the enemy with it's excessive criticism of the war. Just hang in there long enough and the left wing will convince the US population to quit----just like in Sudan, Lebanon, and Vietnam!

Criticism that is acceptable or non acceptable is in the eye of the beholder----IMO the fine line here is distinguished by the criticism that gives aid and comfort to the enemy----and that point has clearly been breached by the left wing.

Do you deny that Al Quida & Iran are our enemies?---- how does giving aid and comfort and comfort to the enemy help us?

tower912 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2007, 01:23:03 PM »

Murf, how can opposition to the war in Iraq for the last 5 years (do the math) because, a, it took away from securing Afhanistan and capturing and b, being convinced 6 months before we went in that there were no WMD's, no nukes, and no ties to al qaeda (our real enemy) equate with aiding the enemy? I wanted al qaeda smashed and bin Laden captured. There wasn't aq in Iraq until months after we invaded. How can being outraged over the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 equal abetting the enemy? How can supporting the troops in many ways both physical and metaphysical while decrying the policy that put them there give solace to the enemy? Keep lashing out.

Murffieus · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2007, 04:34:38 PM »

Why we went into Iraq is irrelavant at this point as we are there now----the Congress voted overwhelmingly for it, Tony Blair was 100% behind it, Hillary & Bill Clinton were behind it----just about everyone was behind it because they ALL saw the same evidence!

Right now Al Quida is in Iraq big time----they have been the main cause behind the sectarian violence (remember the mosque in Samarra?). If they succeed in pushing us out of Iraq they gain IMMENSE credibility in the Arab world and therefore make it much more difficult for us in Afghanistan and everywhere else to eliminate or even control the movement.

Being vehemently critical of the war (Reid & Pelosi) gives aid and comfort to Al Quida and also serves to undermine our troops morale. Meanwhile, we have to win there----we have no choice!

BTW----terrorism isn't confined to Al Quida-----Saddam Hussein was the biggest terrorists of them all-----Ahmadinejad is next!

nathanziarek · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2007, 05:12:42 PM »

Eh. Murf has been copying and pasting the same line for at least a year now.

It all comes down to the same thing: the only way to win this war is to stay the course. There are no other options, no other avenues we should consider in the least.

If you do wish to consider another option, you are an unpatriotic, treacherous liberal, who has no understanding of how the real world works and should just keep your mouth shut.

Murf may be the only person on the planet to understand islamofascism, but he sure doesn't understand democracy or free speech.

"Provide aid and comfort to the enemy"? What does that even mean??

Murffieus · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2007, 07:14:57 PM »

Free speech-----most anything CAN be said----but SHOULD it be said and to what extent should it be said----that's the question. I don't see anything wrong with having Ahmadinejad at Columbia answering tough questions, but I do see spomething very wrong with Gen Petraeus being depicted as a traitor during wartime in a full page ad in the nations most visible newspaper!

"Aid and comfort to the enemy" means----giving the enemy hope and motivation to the extent that they can see light at the end of the tunnel. In this case "light at the end of the tunnel" to Al Quida and Iran is the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq where Al Quida gains substantial additional credibility in the Arab world and a free haven while Iran picks up the pieces and gains more influence in the region and control over Iraqi oil----"islamofacism alright"!

Surrender via withdrawal makes our job in the war on terror much tougher down the road----you make a decision to go to war----you see it through to its conclusion !

nathanziarek · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2007, 08:55:38 PM »

Who decides what SHOULD be said and to what extent? You? The government? This doesn't sound at all totalitarian to you?

I'm not going to argue the war with you, because you are arguing emotion and I know I don't know enough to be fair. I do know -- even within very knowledgeable, respected people -- that agreement on the proper course of action is impossible to find.

Yet, you believe that all public discourse should be shelved because it makes the enemy feel all warm and cozy? When a liberal president does something you disagree with, will support the same measures to limit dissent?

Murffieus · « **Reply #31 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:12:09 AM »

I never said that "all public discourse should be shelved"----where do you get that?

I say above that criticism of the war or how it is being run is every citizen's right-----but to portray a highly respected general who was confirmed unanimously by congress as a "traitor" in a full page ad in the most visible print news source in America is dispicitable-----meanwhile you haven't denounced it!

What Harry Reid and Pelosi are doing is far from "public discourse" on the war----they are obsessed with the war at the expense of a normal legislative agenda-----even as things get significantly better they are obsessed (continues to give aid & confort to the enemy when we have them on the run). Meanwhile nothing gets done like social security reform, Medicare reform, Which outside of the war on terrorism are the two things that threaten America's future----that's why this congress has the lowest rating of any congress in history----they are in the leadership, but all they do is confront ----very little attempt at bipartisanship or consensus building !

nathanziarek · « **Reply #32 on:** October 01, 2007, 10:34:56 PM »

If you are not saying all public discourse should be shelved, what are you saying? Apparently only some discourse should be shelved. I asked who decides that. So who is it? Who decides which people are too honorable to be questioned in public and which aren't?

It makes no difference what I do. I haven't denounced it because I don't think it is despicable. It is largely fact-based (complete with sources) and extremely benign. I think this entire thing is a non-issue.

I don't know why you bring in Reid and Pelosi. Neither has any bearing on my contention that anti-war speech is patriotic -- more patriotic than following the company line.

So I ask again, who decides what can and cannot be said?

Murffieus · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2007, 07:53:28 AM »

I'm sorry but, running a full page ad in the nation's most visible newspaper depicting our lead general as a traitor eventhough he was confirmed unanimously by the congress is not "public discourse".

Again there is a big difference on what legally CAN be said and what SHOULD be said-----anything that gives aid and comfort to the enemy which motivates them to carry on the fight to kill more Americans SHOULD NOT be said-----Reid and Pelosi are doing islamofacism's work for them----that is aiding and abbetting the enemy-----giving them encouragement (a fifth column?) that if they fight on the Americans will leave!

Common sense is the determinant!

News:

Recent Posts

Please Register - It's FREE!

Author Topic: Get your discounted ads now (Read 15960 times)