|
|
| Author |
Message |
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
 Posted: 08/22/04 - 11:01 Post subject: $170 million
|
|
|
That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Janoth
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2002
Posts: 3135
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 11:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I don't think any of them give two s***s about free speach. They just want to win ;)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 11:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Janoth wrote: | I don't think any of them give two s***s about free speach. They just want to win  |
I disagree. The left has perpetrated numerous slanders against the Bush administration with impunity. As soon as the right airs a truthful ad, the left attempts to use their lawyers to censor it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 12:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 12:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | | Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true |
It's true, therefore I underlined it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 12:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Jack Crow wrote: | | Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true |
It's true, therefore I underlined it. |
I hardly think your statement of republican politics being free of underhanded and dirty tricks is anywhere near true just because YOU said it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 12:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Jack Crow wrote: | | Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true |
It's true, therefore I underlined it. |
I hardly think your statement of republican politics being free of underhanded and dirty tricks is anywhere near true just because YOU said it. |
I didn't say that, you illiterate twit. All good politicians use tricks. I underlined truthful as a description of the swift boat ads, as opposed to, say...F 9/11...or every one of MoveOn.org's $170 million worth of ads.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ikkan
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 3086
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 12:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jack Crow wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Jack Crow wrote: | | Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true |
It's true, therefore I underlined it. |
I hardly think your statement of republican politics being free of underhanded and dirty tricks is anywhere near true just because YOU said it. |
While you may be correct, the left does it infinitely more and it is many times worse.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 13:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Jack Crow wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Jack Crow wrote: | | Wow if he underlined truthful it MUST be true |
It's true, therefore I underlined it. |
I hardly think your statement of republican politics being free of underhanded and dirty tricks is anywhere near true just because YOU said it. |
I didn't say that, you illiterate twit. All good politicians use tricks. I underlined truthful as a description of the swift boat ads, as opposed to, say...F 9/11...or every one of MoveOn.org's $170 million worth of ads. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 17:24 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech? |
| The Progressive Government wrote: |
Partisanship and Spending Money
By most accounts, President Bush has raised more than $170 million dollars for his reelection campaign thus far – far more than Democratic front-runner John Kerry.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that the in the past month alone, the Bush campaign spent $15.5 million on ads, while the Kerry campaign spent a mere $1.5 million.
However, because 527 organizations are exempt from federal campaign regulations, Kerry’s smaller campaign chest may not be too significant. MoveOn.org spent $3.5 million and the Media Fund spent $5.9 million on negative Bush ads during the same period, in essence, leveling the field.
Without the ability to count on, although not coordinate with, these groups, the Kerry campaign would be at a significant financial disadvantage.
Recognizing this, the Republican National Committee sent a letter to 250 television stations complaining that ads by Moveon.org were illegally financed by unlimited contributions.
MoveOn.org, like the Media Fund, both say they are within the law and its current definitions. |
http://www.progressivegovernment.org/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7555
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 17:57 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech? |
| The Progressive Government wrote: |
Partisanship and Spending Money
By most accounts, President Bush has raised more than $170 million dollars for his reelection campaign thus far – far more than Democratic front-runner John Kerry.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that the in the past month alone, the Bush campaign spent $15.5 million on ads, while the Kerry campaign spent a mere $1.5 million.
However, because 527 organizations are exempt from federal campaign regulations, Kerry’s smaller campaign chest may not be too significant. MoveOn.org spent $3.5 million and the Media Fund spent $5.9 million on negative Bush ads during the same period, in essence, leveling the field.
Without the ability to count on, although not coordinate with, these groups, the Kerry campaign would be at a significant financial disadvantage.
Recognizing this, the Republican National Committee sent a letter to 250 television stations complaining that ads by Moveon.org were illegally financed by unlimited contributions.
MoveOn.org, like the Media Fund, both say they are within the law and its current definitions. |
http://www.progressivegovernment.org/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7555 |
527's spent $170 million. "Words mean something."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ikkan
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 3086
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 18:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
God Fab you're an idiot.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 08/22/04 - 21:19 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech? |
| The Progressive Government wrote: |
Partisanship and Spending Money
By most accounts, President Bush has raised more than $170 million dollars for his reelection campaign thus far – far more than Democratic front-runner John Kerry.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that the in the past month alone, the Bush campaign spent $15.5 million on ads, while the Kerry campaign spent a mere $1.5 million.
However, because 527 organizations are exempt from federal campaign regulations, Kerry’s smaller campaign chest may not be too significant. MoveOn.org spent $3.5 million and the Media Fund spent $5.9 million on negative Bush ads during the same period, in essence, leveling the field.
Without the ability to count on, although not coordinate with, these groups, the Kerry campaign would be at a significant financial disadvantage.
Recognizing this, the Republican National Committee sent a letter to 250 television stations complaining that ads by Moveon.org were illegally financed by unlimited contributions.
MoveOn.org, like the Media Fund, both say they are within the law and its current definitions. |
http://www.progressivegovernment.org/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7555 |
527's spent $170 million. "Words mean something." |
WORDS MEAN SOMETHING!
Ha ha!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/23/04 - 13:09 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech? |
| The Progressive Government wrote: |
Partisanship and Spending Money
By most accounts, President Bush has raised more than $170 million dollars for his reelection campaign thus far – far more than Democratic front-runner John Kerry.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that the in the past month alone, the Bush campaign spent $15.5 million on ads, while the Kerry campaign spent a mere $1.5 million.
However, because 527 organizations are exempt from federal campaign regulations, Kerry’s smaller campaign chest may not be too significant. MoveOn.org spent $3.5 million and the Media Fund spent $5.9 million on negative Bush ads during the same period, in essence, leveling the field.
Without the ability to count on, although not coordinate with, these groups, the Kerry campaign would be at a significant financial disadvantage.
Recognizing this, the Republican National Committee sent a letter to 250 television stations complaining that ads by Moveon.org were illegally financed by unlimited contributions.
MoveOn.org, like the Media Fund, both say they are within the law and its current definitions. |
http://www.progressivegovernment.org/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7555 |
527's spent $170 million. "Words mean something." |
I thought the information I pasted in would clear up a couple of misunderstandings you have. While the budget of the SBVT may be less than a million dollars, that is not at all representative of the Republican spending in the campaign. Your juxtaposition of the $170mm with the $500k implies that Democratic organizations are outspending Republican organizations. This is not true.
Also your statement that "Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org" is contradicted by the fact that the Republican National Committee sent a letter to TV stations saying "we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation." ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/ )
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/23/04 - 13:37 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | That's how much 527's have spent attacking Bush over the past year, thanks to donations from big-business (like George Soros).
The swift vets have spent $550,000 so far.
Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org. So who is more interested in the protection of free speech? |
| The Progressive Government wrote: |
Partisanship and Spending Money
By most accounts, President Bush has raised more than $170 million dollars for his reelection campaign thus far – far more than Democratic front-runner John Kerry.
The Wisconsin Advertising Project reports that the in the past month alone, the Bush campaign spent $15.5 million on ads, while the Kerry campaign spent a mere $1.5 million.
However, because 527 organizations are exempt from federal campaign regulations, Kerry’s smaller campaign chest may not be too significant. MoveOn.org spent $3.5 million and the Media Fund spent $5.9 million on negative Bush ads during the same period, in essence, leveling the field.
Without the ability to count on, although not coordinate with, these groups, the Kerry campaign would be at a significant financial disadvantage.
Recognizing this, the Republican National Committee sent a letter to 250 television stations complaining that ads by Moveon.org were illegally financed by unlimited contributions.
MoveOn.org, like the Media Fund, both say they are within the law and its current definitions. |
http://www.progressivegovernment.org/phpws/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=7555 |
527's spent $170 million. "Words mean something." |
I thought the information I pasted in would clear up a couple of misunderstandings you have. While the budget of the SBVT may be less than a million dollars, that is not at all representative of the Republican spending in the campaign. Your juxtaposition of the $170mm with the $500k implies that Democratic organizations are outspending Republican organizations. This is not true.
Also your statement that "Republicans have not tried to censor MoveOn.Org" is contradicted by the fact that the Republican National Committee sent a letter to TV stations saying "we urge you to remove these advertisements from your station's broadcast rotation." ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/07/moveon.ads/ ) |
Wrong on both counts. The left has spent $170 million so far (mostly via 527's funded by the likes of Soros and other big-business donors). The right hasn't spent anywhere NEAR that amount. I know the right has spent more than $550,000, but my point is that those $550,000 were more effective than the $170 million spent so far by the left. That makes the right 310 times more effective than the left. No wonder we're so much wealthier.
As for your second point...I was already aware of Republican actions, but that does NOT constitute censorship. The DNC is threatening to take legal action. They want to force tv stations not to air the swift vets' ads. Republicans, on the other hand, notified tv stations that they may be in violation of federal law by airing questionably funded ads (a notification the station lawyers could investigate themselves). They did not threaten to forcefully remove them. Huge difference. The DNC didn't even imply that the swift boat ads were illegal...only that they didn't like them.
Words mean something, ya know.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/23/04 - 14:20 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Wrong on both counts. The left has spent $170 million so far (mostly via 527's funded by the likes of Soros and other big-business donors). The right hasn't spent anywhere NEAR that amount. I know the right has spent more than $550,000, but my point is that those $550,000 were more effective than the $170 million spent so far by the left. That makes the right 310 times more effective than the left. No wonder we're so much wealthier. |
"President Bush alone devoted $209 million to his re-election effort through July, a campaign finance report he filed Friday shows.
His Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, reported to the Federal Election Commission that he spent $36.4 million in July, on top of nearly $150 million through June."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040821_133.html
| Confused wrote: |
As for your second point...I was already aware of Republican actions, but that does NOT constitute censorship. The DNC is threatening to take legal action. They want to force tv stations not to air the swift vets' ads. Republicans, on the other hand, notified tv stations that they may be in violation of federal law by airing questionably funded ads (a notification the station lawyers could investigate themselves). They did not threaten to forcefully remove them. Huge difference. The DNC didn't even imply that the swift boat ads were illegal...only that they didn't like them. |
That's not true. The DNC said the ads were "false and libelous" (libel is a crime). The DNC claims that under 74 F.C.D.2d 623 the stations should refuse to air the ads because they are "false, misleading, or deceptive."
There is no threat of legal action in the letter. The letter requests that the stations not air the ads "in the public interest."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 08/23/04 - 14:34 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Wrong on both counts. The left has spent $170 million so far (mostly via 527's funded by the likes of Soros and other big-business donors). The right hasn't spent anywhere NEAR that amount. I know the right has spent more than $550,000, but my point is that those $550,000 were more effective than the $170 million spent so far by the left. That makes the right 310 times more effective than the left. No wonder we're so much wealthier. |
"President Bush alone devoted $209 million to his re-election effort through July, a campaign finance report he filed Friday shows.
His Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, reported to the Federal Election Commission that he spent $36.4 million in July, on top of nearly $150 million through June."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040821_133.html
| Confused wrote: |
As for your second point...I was already aware of Republican actions, but that does NOT constitute censorship. The DNC is threatening to take legal action. They want to force tv stations not to air the swift vets' ads. Republicans, on the other hand, notified tv stations that they may be in violation of federal law by airing questionably funded ads (a notification the station lawyers could investigate themselves). They did not threaten to forcefully remove them. Huge difference. The DNC didn't even imply that the swift boat ads were illegal...only that they didn't like them. |
That's not true. The DNC said the ads were "false and libelous" (libel is a crime). The DNC claims that under 74 F.C.D.2d 623 the stations should refuse to air the ads because they are "false, misleading, or deceptive."
There is no threat of legal action in the letter. The letter requests that the stations not air the ads "in the public interest." |
527's!!! I said $170 million on 527's (and other similar programs)!!! Stay on topic!!! You're so f*****g stupid it hurts. Those funds ARE NOT reported as part of the candidates' elections campaign. It would be illegal for them to report it, since no "coordination" is allowed.
Secondly, I suggest you research your claims prior to making them. This is the letter the DNC sent out to station managers: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html
Note the part that says the managers are "responsible for the false and libelous charges" (you convenently left out a few words that mean something). You know what those "words mean"? It means that the DNC will sue any station manager who airs the ad. It's a legal threat, not a request. It's a threat to use force if the free speech that our constitution affords those honorable vets is not undermined.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Fabulez
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Nov 2002
Posts: 437
Location: up in here
|
|
Posted: 08/23/04 - 15:48 Post subject: Re: $170 million
|
|
|
| Confused wrote: | | Fabulez wrote: | | Confused wrote: | | Wrong on both counts. The left has spent $170 million so far (mostly via 527's funded by the likes of Soros and other big-business donors). The right hasn't spent anywhere NEAR that amount. I know the right has spent more than $550,000, but my point is that those $550,000 were more effective than the $170 million spent so far by the left. That makes the right 310 times more effective than the left. No wonder we're so much wealthier. |
"President Bush alone devoted $209 million to his re-election effort through July, a campaign finance report he filed Friday shows.
His Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, reported to the Federal Election Commission that he spent $36.4 million in July, on top of nearly $150 million through June."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040821_133.html
| Confused wrote: |
As for your second point...I was already aware of Republican actions, but that does NOT constitute censorship. The DNC is threatening to take legal action. They want to force tv stations not to air the swift vets' ads. Republicans, on the other hand, notified tv stations that they may be in violation of federal law by airing questionably funded ads (a notification the station lawyers could investigate themselves). They did not threaten to forcefully remove them. Huge difference. The DNC didn't even imply that the swift boat ads were illegal...only that they didn't like them. |
That's not true. The DNC said the ads were "false and libelous" (libel is a crime). The DNC claims that under 74 F.C.D.2d 623 the stations should refuse to air the ads because they are "false, misleading, or deceptive."
There is no threat of legal action in the letter. The letter requests that the stations not air the ads "in the public interest." |
527's!!! I said $170 million on 527's (and other similar programs)!!! Stay on topic!!! You're so f*****g stupid it hurts. Those funds ARE NOT reported as part of the candidates' elections campaign. It would be illegal for them to report it, since no "coordination" is allowed.
|
You said "The left has spent $170 million so far (mostly via 527's funded by the likes of Soros and other big-business donors). The right hasn't spent anywhere NEAR that amount." I don't know where that $170mm figure came from...I can't find much good information on 527 spending. I was simply pointing out that both sides are spending tons of money. Does it really matter which section of the tax code the money falls into? The point is that policy is being whored out to the interests of the rich and powerful. Maybe you've noticed that most large corporations contribute to BOTH Democrats and Republicans. I wonder why.
| Confused wrote: |
Secondly, I suggest you research your claims prior to making them. This is the letter the DNC sent out to station managers: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_pdf.html
Note the part that says the managers are "responsible for the false and libelous charges" (you convenently left out a few words that mean something). You know what those "words mean"? It means that the DNC will sue any station manager who airs the ad. It's a legal threat, not a request. It's a threat to use force if the free speech that our constitution affords those honorable vets is not undermined. |
True, that could be interpreted as a threat of legal action. This could as well:
| Quote: |
"As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public, and to your licensing agency, to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity," said the RNC's chief counsel, Jill Holtzman Vogel, in a letter sent to about 250 stations Friday
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
