• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Moveon.org does it again.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Are you suggesting they should be punished for making such a common mistake?

Common mistake? :laugh:

I'd like to see some examples of this "common" mistake from others, please.

Of people using incorrect photographs? Are you serious? I don't know... why don't you check every publication in the history of mankind since the introduction of the photograph?

Its not that they used an incorrect photo, its that they photoshoped pants on a guy wearing shorts and called them american troops. Its not like it that hard to find photos of american troops in iraq.

Didn't they pull this same shit the year before or two years ago with the same photo and ad? Or was the ad for something other than thanksgiving?

Yes, they did, and it was the SAME photo they are using now, different photoshop.
 
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Are you suggesting they should be punished for making such a common mistake?

Common mistake? :laugh:

I'd like to see some examples of this "common" mistake from others, please.

Of people using incorrect photographs? Are you serious? I don't know... why don't you check every publication in the history of mankind since the introduction of the photograph?

Its not that they used an incorrect photo, its that they photoshoped pants on a guy wearing shorts and called them american troops. Its not like it that hard to find photos of american troops in iraq.

Didn't they pull this same shit the year before or two years ago with the same photo and ad? Or was the ad for something other than thanksgiving?
I don't know, did they? (Hint: read the first post).

The photo use is 'careless and dumb', or possibly 'lazy and arrogant', but has absolutely no bearing on the larger issue at hand. You know this, and so does everyone else.

/thread.
 
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Are you suggesting they should be punished for making such a common mistake?

Common mistake? :laugh:

I'd like to see some examples of this "common" mistake from others, please.

Of people using incorrect photographs? Are you serious? I don't know... why don't you check every publication in the history of mankind since the introduction of the photograph?

Its not that they used an incorrect photo, its that they photoshoped pants on a guy wearing shorts and called them american troops. Its not like it that hard to find photos of american troops in iraq.

Didn't they pull this same shit the year before or two years ago with the same photo and ad? Or was the ad for something other than thanksgiving?

Okay, so they put pants on a guy. Now what does the presence or absence of pants on a person have to do with the point of the ad? Nothing of course... that's why people complaining about this of all things is really really stupid.

 
Originally posted by: wiin
This is nothing new dude....
rest of tripe snipped..

Indeed, the despair actually has a stink to it now. Not to mention the continued search for fake outrage material about totally insignificant things moveson! LMFAO.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Are you suggesting they should be punished for making such a common mistake?

Common mistake? :laugh:

I'd like to see some examples of this "common" mistake from others, please.

Of people using incorrect photographs? Are you serious? I don't know... why don't you check every publication in the history of mankind since the introduction of the photograph?

Its not that they used an incorrect photo, its that they photoshoped pants on a guy wearing shorts and called them american troops. Its not like it that hard to find photos of american troops in iraq.

Didn't they pull this same shit the year before or two years ago with the same photo and ad? Or was the ad for something other than thanksgiving?

Okay, so they put pants on a guy. Now what does the presence or absence of pants on a person have to do with the point of the ad? Nothing of course... that's why people complaining about this of all things is really really stupid.

Perhaps lying, deceit, and misrepresentation of our military isnt an issue with you.

Dont people hate the current administration for lying and deceiving? Oh thats right. It's a more serious issue.

So it's OK for an organization to lie, deceive, and misrepresent our military, ESPECIALLY one who represents the Dems so prominantly, as long as it doesnt have anything to do with the war.

OK I get it.
 
This reminds me of the "Rathergate" episode. No one on the right will address the actual claim being made but find something else to attack and then claim that the entire issue is moot because one thing is not valid.

"See, I told ya that CBS used unsubstantiated documents. That proves that any claims they make about Bush not completing his service duty are completely bogus!" :roll:

That would be like the Dems attempting to state that any claims by the right to Clinton being a cheater are completely invalid because one woman's claim wasn't substantiated.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Perhaps lying, deceit, and misrepresentation of our military isnt an issue with you.

Dont people hate the current administration for lying and deceiving? Oh thats right. It's a more serious issue.

So it's OK for an organization to lie, deceive, and misrepresent our military, ESPECIALLY one who represents the Dems so prominantly, as long as it doesnt have anything to do with the war.

OK I get it.

You are an idiot if you think that showing a picture of people in the exact same situation as our troops but wearing different uniforms is "lying, deceit, and misrepresentation". I mean it, an idiot.

You people are desperately searching for something to get outraged about... I mean reaching for absolutely anything that will work, and this was the best you could come up with. People with differently camoflaged pants. Think about how pathetic that is for a second.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Did someone at Moveon actually photoshop the pants on the guy, or could it have been the photographer the bought the picture from? And were the people who made the add years ago the same people who made this recent add?

You would think, after the last debacle (eerily similar to this one), they'd have went with a different ad agency.

In the end, it really doesn't matter whether someone did a Photoshop or whether an erroneous photo was purchased by a third party for publication. MoveOn is ultimately responsible for the propa...er, content they are putting out.
And what exactly do you think the propaganda value of using that picure rather than one of our own troops is?
 
Republicans still trying to build a bogeyman out of Moveon.org
Most Democrats don't even care about that organization all that much. It's mostly young idealistic activists that do. Certainly it may be good to have their support if you are a candidate, but they aren't king makers by any stretch. It's kind of like Daily Kos, the right tries to demonize them, but all they are doing is giving them free publicity. The guy runs a blog, for crying out loud. He has no real pull.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's kind of like Daily Kos, the right tries to demonize them, but all they are doing is giving them free publicity. The guy runs a blog, for crying out loud. He has no real pull.

Funny thing, Harry Reid and several other top ranking Democrats attended the YearlyKOS convention. Seems to me the guy has a lot of pull within the ranks.

As for MoveOn, marginalize them as you may, but the $300+ million bucks they've poured in to DNC coffers tells me they are far from a small minority.
 
Originally posted by: wiin
This is nothing new dude. Democrats was caught last year with Canadian troops on their website. Yup, Yup, Yup.. them democrats and their band of racists, intolerant, loonies support the troops, just not ours.
Reading the excuses of the loonies in regard to this, here, is really funny

Yeah I remember seeing that on their web site. I emailed the DNC to communicate my disdain. They actually photochopped the badge off of the Canadian Soldier's beret, too.

I think that a large chunk of the U.S. population hasn't been initiated with their own nation's military. I also think the fact that the war doesn't affect them appreciably, for a variety of reasons, is a reasoning for that. No rationing, no huge percentage of the able-bodied civilian population being inducted, etc.

 
Kee-rist... from the mock outrage on the rightwing, you'd think the pic was photchopped to show the troops eating babies.

And this, from Blackangst1, would be hysterical if he wasn't serious-

"Perhaps lying, deceit, and misrepresentation of our military isnt an issue with you."

Maybe you'd care to explain how a pic of misidentified allied troops standing in the chow line is "lying, deceit, and misrepresentation" in some sort of significant way... whether they're wearing pants or shorts... or maybe you're contending that our troops don't eat?

The lameness of the whole contention is truly pathetic... but, please, do carry on- I can smell the fear & desperation from here, even over the internet...

Care to address the *Content* of the ad?

Probably not...

Whatever else can be said about it, it's obviously not as lame as the Colin Powell tiretracks slideshow for the UN... Didn't see any outrage from the true believers about that....
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: senseamp
It's kind of like Daily Kos, the right tries to demonize them, but all they are doing is giving them free publicity. The guy runs a blog, for crying out loud. He has no real pull.

Funny thing, Harry Reid and several other top ranking Democrats attended the YearlyKOS convention. Seems to me the guy has a lot of pull within the ranks.

As for MoveOn, marginalize them as you may, but the $300+ million bucks they've poured in to DNC coffers tells me they are far from a small minority.

Yeah, they went to speak at his convention, big deal? Doesn't mean he has pull when it comes to policy. He and his blog readers are just another group supporting Democrats, nothing wrong with that, that's their right, but overblowing their influence is just lame.
$300+ million bucks in how many years from moveon? Considering how much a campaign costs, that will put it in perspective. Plus if it wasn't for moveon, most people supporting them would still give money to the Democrat candidates through some other fundraising organisation or directly to DNC. So let's not overblow that one too, sure they are a middleman that helps raise money, and they have some influence, but it's not as significant as some people like to make it look for their own political scare tactics. Republicans can't run on issues, because they are bankrupt in that department, they need a bogeyman to run against.
 
Well, I for one, am not suprised at the - ahem - ad, nor the reaction to it.

To me, it's a pretty good representation of not only the Democrats, but those who claim to be them. Naive and stupid.

/cue "But Bush! But Bush! But Bush!"
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I for one, am not suprised at the - ahem - ad, nor the reaction to it.

To me, it's a pretty good representation of not only the Democrats, but those who claim to be them. Naive and stupid.

/cue "But Bush! But Bush! But Bush!"

Yeah, because THIS thread is just overflowing with intelligence and clear thinking from you :roll:

This is the kind of dumb non-issue that only appeals to folks who can't actually make a real argument. Like those pictures of John Kerry awkwardly throwing a football, it might make a good punchline, but only a moron would try to use it as a stand-in for a real argument.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, I for one, am not suprised at the - ahem - ad, nor the reaction to it.

To me, it's a pretty good representation of not only the Democrats, but those who claim to be them. Naive and stupid.

/cue "But Bush! But Bush! But Bush!"

Naive and Stupid? This is from a Republican party that sent troops to Iraq in search of WMDs and thinking it would pay for itself. Yeah, OK. I'll be "naive and stupid" if the alternative is being a Republican.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, they went to speak at his convention, big deal? Doesn't mean he has pull when it comes to policy. He and his blog readers are just another group supporting Democrats, nothing wrong with that, that's their right, but overblowing their influence is just lame.

How many other bloggers would get Reid and company to attend? That's my point.

$300+ million bucks in how many years from moveon? Considering how much a campaign costs, that will put it in perspective. Plus if it wasn't for moveon, most people supporting them would still give money to the Democrat candidates through some other fundraising organisation or directly to DNC. So let's not overblow that one too, sure they are a middleman that helps raise money, and they have some influence, but it's not as significant as some people like to make it look for their own political scare tactics. Republicans can't run on issues, because they are bankrupt in that department, they need a bogeyman to run against.

No matter how you try to spin it, or qualify it, raising over $300 million bucks for DNC coffers gives them lots of influence. And it is readily apparent.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, they went to speak at his convention, big deal? Doesn't mean he has pull when it comes to policy. He and his blog readers are just another group supporting Democrats, nothing wrong with that, that's their right, but overblowing their influence is just lame.

How many other bloggers would get Reid and company to attend? That's my point.

$300+ million bucks in how many years from moveon? Considering how much a campaign costs, that will put it in perspective. Plus if it wasn't for moveon, most people supporting them would still give money to the Democrat candidates through some other fundraising organisation or directly to DNC. So let's not overblow that one too, sure they are a middleman that helps raise money, and they have some influence, but it's not as significant as some people like to make it look for their own political scare tactics. Republicans can't run on issues, because they are bankrupt in that department, they need a bogeyman to run against.

No matter how you try to spin it, or qualify it, raising over $300 million bucks for DNC coffers gives them lots of influence. And it is readily apparent.

So what's your point? Hundreds of millions of dollars go to both parties from many different special interest groups. You point to MoveOn.org's contributions and leave unsaid why we should care about them in particular. But it doesn't REALLY go unsaid, does it? Innuendo only works so far...tell me why I should care about MoveOn.org.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
So what's your point? Hundreds of millions of dollars go to both parties from many different special interest groups. You point to MoveOn.org's contributions and leave unsaid why we should care about them in particular. But it doesn't REALLY go unsaid, does it? Innuendo only works so far...tell me why I should care about MoveOn.org.

My point? That MoveOn.org does, in fact, carry large influence within the Democratic Party, contrary to the talking points presented here. Nothing more, nothing less.

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
So what's your point? Hundreds of millions of dollars go to both parties from many different special interest groups. You point to MoveOn.org's contributions and leave unsaid why we should care about them in particular. But it doesn't REALLY go unsaid, does it? Innuendo only works so far...tell me why I should care about MoveOn.org.

My point? That MoveOn.org does, in fact, carry large influence within the Democratic Party, contrary to the talking points presented here. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's not your point, because by itself, it doesn't really qualify as a point. You obviously have some reason for trying to demonstrate MoveOn.org influences the Democratic party...I'm asking why it's important.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's not your point, because by itself, it doesn't really qualify as a point. You obviously have some reason for trying to demonstrate MoveOn.org influences the Democratic party...I'm asking why it's important.

But it is my point.

Why is it important? Well, those who are members of that party should be informed about who is influencing the leadership and to what extent.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's not your point, because by itself, it doesn't really qualify as a point. You obviously have some reason for trying to demonstrate MoveOn.org influences the Democratic party...I'm asking why it's important.

But it is my point.

Why is it important? Well, those who are members of that party should be informed about who is influencing the leadership and to what extent.

Give me a break, this is classic political debate by innuendo. The "link" between Democrats and MoveOn.org is ALWAYS drawn with the *wink**wink *nudge**nudge* behind it, insinuating that it's a bad thing and we're supposed to draw negative conclusions about the Democrats. Your protestations of purity of motive aside, I hardly see you taking the effort for anyone BUT MoveOn.org. Were you just after transparent campaign financing, your obsession with MoveOn.org would seem strange.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Give me a break, this is classic political debate by innuendo. The "link" between Democrats and MoveOn.org is ALWAYS drawn with the *wink**wink *nudge**nudge* behind it, insinuating that it's a bad thing and we're supposed to draw negative conclusions about the Democrats. Your protestations of purity of motive aside, I hardly see you taking the effort for anyone BUT MoveOn.org. Were you just after transparent campaign financing, your obsession with MoveOn.org would seem strange.

Yet I never saw such a passionate, feigned outrage about "innuendo" from you in any of the PNAC threads...
 
Pabster and the rest of the mock offended are deliberately missing the point. Imagine the condemned on the gallows, remarking about how the hangman didn't shine his shoes... or the guy going under the bus noticing the scrape on the bumper... same sort of distraction and denial...
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Pabster and the rest of the mock offended are deliberately missing the point. Imagine the condemned on the gallows, remarking about how the hangman didn't shine his shoes... or the guy going under the bus noticing the scrape on the bumper... same sort of distraction and denial...

The mock outrage they feel is my sig...

 
Back
Top