Support NeoGAF

[ComputerNerd]

Whatever, GOP. Next year you'll be running so many dishonest and hard-hitting ads against Democrats; enjoy playing victim while there's downtime. But if we are to talk about the ad and how it was accepted into the paper, yes, there's room for argument there. However, they're making a huge deal out of it. OMG SOME PEOPLE THINK GENERAL PETRAEUS HAS BETRAYED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Big deal. Get over it.

Also, did I just read the GOP is voting against this ad or something? Are you kidding me?

I don't want to hear any more of you conservatives tell me Democrats are wasting their time. At least they're TRYING to do things that matter, even if it ultimately always gets thrown out by Republicans in Congress or the President himself.

So, according to you, personal attacks are A-OK.

 

[Diablos]

I think personal attacks are ridiculous 95% of the time.

Also, I said they were playing victim. And they are. I don't really think this ad is going to do any more damage to the public's opinion of Petraeus, the Iraq war, Bush, the GOP in general, etc. This ad is not so insane that it should be getting so much attention.

moveon.org and similar groups can bitch about David Petraeus all they want, and it's not going to change anything. It's not like 2004 where a lot of the negative ads against Kerry played a significant role in him not getting elected. Petraeus has demonstrated that he doesn't really give a shit what most people think. And, unlike Bush or Kerry, he doesn't have an election to worry about.

This is why I think they're overreacting. It's just a silly little ad. I never really thought much of it, even being anti-war and all myself.

 

[Learn2read]

Well I hope you're all happy:

GOP Congressman Calls For Hearings Into New York Times/MoveOn Ad
By Greg Sargent - September 24, 2007, 4:24PM
It had to happen -- a GOP Congressman is calling for hearings into The New York Times's decision to publish MoveOn's anti-Petraeus ad at a cheaper-than-usual rate.

GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia has sent a letter to Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman demanding a probe into the "scandal."

"It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct," Davis writes. "You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times."

Davis issued a similar call for hearings last week, but his current one is noteworthy because it was inspired by yesterday's piece by The Times's public editor, Clark Hoyt, which reported that the paper had acknowledged that charging MoveOn the price it paid for the ad was a "mistake."

Davis has powerful political incentives for taking on The Times. He's running for the Senate seat of the retiring John Warner and faces a likely primary challenge from his right -- so attacking the paper is an easy way to put a little sheen on his tarnished conservative bona fides.

The full letter is here. Meanwhile, our take on how Hoyt dropped the ball with his piece on this is here at The Horse's Mouth.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[perryfarrell]

Can somebody summarize the difference of opinion between the different posters from the last page of this thread? I've lost what it's about.

 

[maynerd]

Man these republicans want answers! I wish they would demand answers for the BS with gonzales, illegal wiretapping, billons of $ literally lost in Iraq, outing of a CIA agent, the list goes ON and ON and ON..

But if someone get's a discount on an advertisement let's get this shit figured out!

 

[Dan]

I swear, I only hear about MoveOn when they're directly or indirectly undermining the left. Whether the ad is appropriate or not, they had to know that it wasn't going to move the debate towards anything of substance.

 

[Tamanon]

Maybe Moveon is a secret right-wing conspiracy!

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

New York Times should have charged the standard rate.

/thread

 

[twinturbo2]

Well I hope you're all happy:



:lol :lol :lol

Dear God, I thought McConnell was bitching about useless motions that wastes the Senate's time. Isn't he up for reelection in 2008, anyways?

 

[APF]

I swear, I only hear about MoveOn when they're directly or indirectly undermining the left. Whether the ad is appropriate or not, they had to know that it wasn't going to move the debate towards anything of substance.

.

New York Times should have charged the standard rate.

.

It's pretty obvious, when your ad says, "today," you know it's going to be printed that day, and not potentially some other day. There was no legitimate reason to consider it "standby."

 

[Mr. Mister]

:lol
For some reason everytime I read the thread title I laugh.

 

[APF]

Oh, here's that quote for people asking, "what about Rudy's ad, huh?? What about his ad?"

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the newspaper does not base its ad rates on political content. She also said that the paper cannot disclose what it charges for individual ads. But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

"The Giuliani campaign asked for the same rate as MoveOn, and we said you'd have to go standby," she said. She said the advertising department told the campaign the ad would run in today's A section.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/14/giuliani_slams_times_over_anti_petraeus_ad/

 

[Learn2read]

But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

What what what.

So moveon pays a fee to run an ad on a certain day and gets a rate that doesn't guarentee it'll run, but there's room and it runs. AND THIS IS A CONTROVERSY.

:lol :lol :lol

I'll give it to you Republicans, you guys sure are masterful ratfuckers.

 

[Futureman]

There was an op/ed in the Times the other day that said MoveOn saw a huge surge in donations and people becoming members after the "Betray Us" ad ran.

So overall, through this whole incident, members of both the Repubs and Dems are looking like idiots for even addressing this thing, the Times took a dent in credibility, and MoveOn profited greatly.

 

[Tron 2.0]

Via Crooks and Liars:

Tucker [Carlson] substitute host David Shuster confronts Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) about the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican party when he asks about Rush Limbaugh’s Senator Betrayus smear against Senator Chuck Hagel and all Blackburn wants to do is rehash tired slams against the New York Times over the MoveOn ad.

As Blackburn prattles on about the NYT betraying the public trust and making sweetheart deals, Shuster turns the tables on her and asks her to name the last soldier from her district who was killed in Iraq — and what do you know? She had no idea what his name was, or even why she didn’t know. Watch Blackburn stutter and get backed into a corner, with Shuster proving she cared more about making partisan hits than she did about the dead soldiers from her own district.

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh - from my district I - I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I - I, you know, I - I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.” [Snip]

Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

I think this whole thing has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by the GOP and I'm glad some people are willing to call them on their bullshit. Was it a poor choice for the NYT to run the ad? Probably. But the response has become nonsensical.

 

[maynerd]

Via Crooks and Liars:


I think this whole thing has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by the GOP and I'm glad some people are willing to call them on their bullshit. Was it a poor choice for the NYT to run the ad? Probably. But the response has become nonsensical.

David whooped up on her ass.

 

[Macam]

Via Crooks and Liars:

I think this whole thing has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by the GOP and I'm glad some people are willing to call them on their bullshit. Was it a poor choice for the NYT to run the ad? Probably. But the response has become nonsensical.

That clip was comedy gold, although picking on Blackburn is the equivalent of choosing which piñata you'd like for your birthday bash. Shuster's too smart for such an easy target, but the larger point is nonetheless valid.

Don't know if this was mentioned or not, but MoveOn paid the difference ($75k?) and the NYTimes also gave the same rate to Giuliani. Not really sure what this thread is about, then. Not to mention the fact that this error was not a policy decision to give MoveOn a free pass, but simply a mistake by a cog in the machine.

The thread should've ended there, but the amount of people that continue to fall for this non-story doomed it to blowing past Page 1.

 

[APF]

What what what.

So moveon pays a fee to run an ad on a certain day and gets a rate that doesn't guarentee it'll run, but there's room and it runs. AND THIS IS A CONTROVERSY.

:lol :lol :lol

I'll give it to you Republicans, you guys sure are masterful ratfuckers.

So basically you haven't read any of the links in the original post, don't understand a word of what's going on, and yet you've been rabidly spinning for... something nonetheless. REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY FTW!!

 

[RevenantKioku]

Uh, this is a poem I call "New York Times".

New York Times.
New York Times.
You think you're better than us?
Us?
U-S?
USA?
No Way.

Thank you.

 

[typhonsentra]

And yeah, the Democrats should take note on how to honor and respect soldiers from the GOP.

 

[APF]

Kerry's a Senator.

 

[Dyno]

It takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are. "Support Our Troops" gets repeated ad nauseum, unless they run for office as a member of the Democratic Party of course. Then they are called liars and ridiculed by those who sought multiple deferments to keep their cowardly asses out of combat. (Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc.) The troops are nothing but pawns to the Republians at large, and this is proven by how they treat their military serving opponents.

Take a bow there loser, when you mock the wounds of one soldier, you mock them all.

 

[APF]

It takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are.

Bush served in the National Guard, and you just denigrated his service.

 

[maynerd]

Sup wit dis?

 

[Tamanon]

It takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are. "Support Our Troops" gets repeated ad nauseum, unless they run for office as a member of the Democratic Party of course. Then they are called liars and ridiculed by those who sought multiple deferments to keep their cowardly asses out of combat. (Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc.) The troops are nothing but pawns to the Republians at large, and this is proven by how they treat their military serving opponents.

Take a bow there loser, when you mock the wounds of one soldier, you mock them all.

So......then you agree that moveon's ad was horrible?

 

[Learn2read]

So basically you haven't read any of the links in the original post, don't understand a word of what's going on, and yet you've been rabidly spinning for... something nonetheless. REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY FTW!!

What you just quoted, genius:

But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

Did moveon not originally pay $64,575? They requested a spot in Monday's paper and got it. Your side's hysterics over this are getting more and more ridiculous. This is one for the ages.

 

[APF]

What you just quoted, genius:

Did moveon not originally pay $64,575? They requested a spot in Monday's paper and got it. Your side's hysterics over this are getting more and more ridiculous. This is one for the ages.

If you haven't read the articles in the OP, why are you trying to argue with me about what the issue is? The point wasn't that they bought an ad on standby, it's that a) they got the standby rate without it actually being a standby placement (as is obvious by the fact that the text of the ad says, "today..."), and that b) the ad itself appears to violate The Times' own content standards. Read the article by The Times' Ombudsman, then argue, genius.

 

[Dyno]

Bush served in the National Guard, and you just denigrated his service.

Had he not passed the line way ahead of others into pilot training as a way to avoid the Viet Nam draft, you would have a point.

Had he not skipped out and bascially gone AWOL by failing to report when he moved States, you would have a point.

Had not later had his trashy record scrubbed thanks once again to daddy's connections, then you might have a point.

But since all of these things are some of his worst kept secrets, you have no point.

That you would also equate an actual soldier who went to war and was injuried (Kerry) to a guy who remained stateside show how little perception you actually have.

 

[Dyno]

So......then you agree that moveon's ad was horrible?

As I said they did wrong what with the discount, but really that's NYT problem. If someone is going to offer you a product or service at a big discount, most of us would take it and be thankful.

If you are saying that Petraeus is untouchable on account of him being a military man, he lost that protection when he stepped with both feet into the political arena. Military personal are not suppose to advocate national policy. MacArthur did it and was fired, Smedley Butler did it and was forced out. There are about a dozen officers in American history who advocated a course of action in the polical sphere and had to be reminded that when a military man starts weighing in on policy the line between the two bodies becomes blurred. This is what can lead to a military dictatorship or junta.

Had Petraeus done this while a worthy administration ruled America he would have been removed. As it stands he was put there because there are none in the Bush adminstration with enough credibility to stand before congress.

What's sad is that Petreaus WILL be thrown under the bus by the administration that is hiding behind him when the Iraq war continous to quagmire.

 

[APF]

You talked about military service, which you are again denigrating, to your disservice, using your own inflammatory rhetoric. You're also what, creating fantasies in order to do that, which is exactly what the Kerry-band-aid-purple-heart folks were doing. To your disservice.

 

[bob_arctor]

You talked about military service, which you are again denigrating, to your disservice, using your own inflammatory rhetoric. You're also what, creating fantasies in order to do that, which is exactly what the Kerry-band-aid-purple-heart folks were doing. To your disservice.

What?

 

[Stoney Mason]

I like the "new" APF. No pussy footing around anymore

 

[Dyno]

You talked about military service, which you are again denigrating, to your disservice, using your own inflammatory rhetoric. You're also what, creating fantasies in order to do that, which is exactly what the Kerry-band-aid-purple-heart folks were doing. To your disservice.

I'm going to try and be a little more clear than that muddled mess of a sentence. I am denigrating Bush's lack of service whereas he supports the illusion of it being otherwise. Fantasies?

http://search.salon.com/results/?query=Bush+Service+Record&breadth=recent

Various light reading, with links to other news sources if you are even remotely interested on this topic.

That bandaid gag is a great example of how poisonous and underhanded the political system has become. In a sane political contest Kerry's service and his purple heart would be a strength, but under Karl Rove's mudslinging it became a weakness, something to mock openly. Meanwhile Bush's so-called service record, of which none can find, becomes a strength because you can't call into question something that isn't there.

Thanks for doing your part in spreading the lies.

 

[APF]

I am fully aware of the fact that I can do a search on Salon, or The Nation, or Mother Jones, or many other news-entertainment outlets for information that suggests Bush is Satan; that's not the point. However inglorious, Bush served in the National Guard, period. No fictitious documents dislodge that reality. So the point is, you are going against your own principles--stated in this very thread--that, "t takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are." So you must be a dirtbag. Thanks for your part in putting dirt in bags.

I like the "new" APF. No pussy footing around anymore

People wanted me to be more clear...

 

[Dyno]

I am fully aware of the fact that I can do a search on Salon, or The Nation, or Mother Jones, or many other news-entertainment outlets for information that suggests Bush is Satan; that's not the point. However inglorious, Bush served in the National Guard, period. No fictitious documents dislodge that reality. So the point is, you are going against your own principles--stated in this very thread--that, "t takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are." So you must be a dirtbag. Thanks for your part in putting dirt in bags.

What kind of wilfull ignorance is that? If Bush's so-called military service was inglorious as you have admitted then why should it be held in the same light as a person who actually served their time and did their duty as they originally vowed to do?

YOU brought Bush into this, not me. Comparing the two military careers isn't denigrating one over the other. Only an ideologue would consider facts to be insults.

 

[bob_arctor]

People wanted me to be more clear...

Usually I don't. I'm one of the few here that's never had any trouble discerning exactly what you're getting at. That post was particularly muddled though.

 

[RiZ III]

Everyone is corrupt. Corrupt is everyone. The good are really bad and the bad remain bad. Liberals are scum like their right wing brothas. Why defend one and condemn the others? Everyone is corrupt. No exceptions.

 

[bob_arctor]

Everyone is corrupt. Corrupt is everyone. The good are really bad and the bad remain bad. Liberals are scum like their right wing brothas. Why defend one and condemn the others? Everyone is corrupt. No exceptions.

Nah, they aren't actually. Though maybe I'm confused as to who exactly you're lumping in that pile?

 

[pxleyes]

Would you then say that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are journalists?

I would. Though they never claim to be.

 

[APF]

If Bush's so-called military service was inglorious as you have admitted then why should it be held in the same light as a person who actually served their time and did their duty as they originally vowed to do?

"It takes a special kind of dirtbag to disrespect the military service of any person, no matter what their politics are."

What kind of willful ignorance is this? You're clearly disrespecting his military service, therefore by your logic you're "a special kind of dirtbag." Only an ideoogue would not consider what you're doing denigrating his service:

den·i·grate (dĕn'ĭ-grāt') pronunciation
tr.v., -grat·ed, -grat·ing, -grates.

1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

[Latin dēnigrāre, dēnigrāt-, to blacken, defame : dē-, de- + niger, nigr-, black.]
denigration den'i·gra'tion n.
denigrator den'i·gra'tor n.


denigrate

verb

1. To contaminate the reputation of: befoul, besmear, besmirch, bespatter, blacken, cloud, dirty, smear, smudge, smut, soil, spatter, stain, sully, taint, tarnish. Idioms: give a black eye to, slingthrowmud on. See attack/defend, clean/dirty.
2. To think, represent, or speak of as small or unimportant: belittle, decry, deprecate, depreciate, derogate, detract, discount, disparage, downgrade, minimize, run down, slight, talk down. Idioms: makelightlittleof. See attack/defend, show/hide.


edit: also, YOU brought Bush into it, not me. You're really batting zero for intellectual honesty here.

 

[pxleyes]

How about instead of looking like a complete fool you realize that Bush is an exception to the rule like any other asshat who shrugged off his duty. His "service" is more of a disgrace than any comment Dyno is making ABOUT bush's service.

 

[APF]

How about instead of looking like a complete fool you realize that Bush is an exception to the rule like any other asshat who shrugged off his duty. His "service" is more of a disgrace than any comment Dyno is making ABOUT bush's service.

How about we extend that exception to anyone we feel deserves to be criticized?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

How about we extend that exception to anyone we feel deserves to be criticized?

 

[APF]

uh..

 

[Eric P]

uh..

i think he's getting at you "spinning"

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not really sure why soldiers get this automoatic halo in the first place, but I'm sure as hell not extending that privledge to Bush, who hid from VietNam in the National Guard. I won't put down Guardsmen wholesale, but under Bush's circumstane, his service was an act of cowardice.

Edit: And damnit, this is still just a diversion from talking about the mess in Iraq.

 

[APF]

I thought it was a diversion from talking about the NYT's BETRAYAL OMG

i think he's getting at you "spinning"

Yeah, but I don't think I've argued that anyone is beyond criticism...

 

[maynerd]

Sup wit dis?

So no one wants to reconcile this? I can't understandy why betrayus's numbers differs from the pentagon's numbers.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

W's time spent in the National Guard and Kerry's service in Vietnam were not the same thing.

Disrespecting someone for dodging the draft by joining the stateside national guard is unequivocally different from disrespecting someone's fighting the war in Vietnam.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

What what what.

So moveon pays a fee to run an ad on a certain day and gets a rate that doesn't guarentee it'll run, but there's room and it runs. AND THIS IS A CONTROVERSY.

:lol :lol :lol

I'll give it to you Republicans, you guys sure are masterful ratfuckers.

So you literally didn't read shit in the two pages of this thread before yesterday? Because anyone with basic reading comprehension understood this from reading the OP, or before clicking the thread at all.