Vote for moveon PAC commercials

[preslove]

Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

'Nuff said.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

'Nuff said.

:roll: you obviously have no idea how moveon was founded and is currently operated.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

'Nuff said.

Maybe I'm missing something, sue them for what?

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

Duh, they are a PAC. That's what a PAC is. At least they don't thy to pretend they're something else, like the mouthpeice for the neocons does.

 

[Todd33]

moveon is grass roots, it has millions of members. It's not some PAC that has two millionaires funding smear campaigns. If you think millions of tax paying citizens who give time and money to change the political landscape is evil, you need to move to a new country.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

'Nuff said.

:roll: you obviously have no idea how moveon was founded and is currently operated...

....with a whole shedload of funding from George Soros - Democratic mouthpiece. It seems like MoveOn would be all up in arms about Soros's obvious attempt to get around the federal donation limit. What'd he give - around $6 million? Don't tell me money doesn't talk and that Soros has an exact equal voice to everyone else that donates, 'cause that'll just make you look silly.

:roll: back at ya.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Todd33
moveon is grass roots, it has millions of members. It's not some PAC that has two millionaires funding smear campaigns. If you think millions of tax paying citizens who give time and money to change the political landscape is evil, you need to move to a new country.

This is MoveonPAC, which is organized differently and operated separately from Moveon.org. They gather small donations, but not soft money, and then endorse candidates. Moveon.org can recieve as much soft money as they can, but can't endorse candidates.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Todd33
It's not some PAC that has two millionaires funding smear campaigns.

Yeah - just one.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove
Moveon.org can recieve as much soft money as they can, but can't endorse candidates.

Honestly - in our two-party system, what's the difference between endorsing one candidate and anti-endorsing the other?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Text
If you just want to view all the ads you can click on the View next ad link at the bottom.

Moveon PAC kicks ass. They have this going on as well as the concert tour.

MoveOn is just a tool and mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. It doesn't take an attorney to prove the links. Their turn is soon for being sued.

'Nuff said.

:roll: you obviously have no idea how moveon was founded and is currently operated...

....with a whole shedload of funding from George Soros - Democratic mouthpiece. It seems like MoveOn would be all up in arms about Soros's obvious attempt to get around the federal donation limit. What'd he give - around $6 million? Don't tell me money doesn't talk and that Soros has an exact equal voice to everyone else that donates, 'cause that'll just make you look silly.

:roll: back at ya.

This is moveonpac.org, not moveon.org. Soros hasn't given money to moveonpac.org because that would be illegal. Giving softmoney to 527 branch is totally legal.

Calling Soros a democratic mouthpiece is IDIOTIC. The dude is a financial god who doesn't need puny little political parties.

So again, you have no clue concerning moveon OR campaign finance.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Moveon.org can recieve as much soft money as they can, but can't endorse candidates.

Honestly - in our two-party system, what's the difference between endorsing one candidate and anti-endorsing the other?

Ralph Nader

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Moveon.org can recieve as much soft money as they can, but can't endorse candidates.

Honestly - in our two-party system, what's the difference between endorsing one candidate and anti-endorsing the other?

Ralph Nader

:roll:

if the Dems had their way, Nader wouldn't be around. His the Green Party honestly counted as an official party? How many states' ballots is he even on?

Would MoveOn be happy if a lot of people voted for Nader, thus splitting the Democratic vote? I doubt it.

 

[Todd33]

Would the RNC be happy is David Duke ran and split the Republican vote?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove
Moveon.org can recieve as much soft money as they can, but can't endorse candidates.

Honestly - in our two-party system, what's the difference between endorsing one candidate and anti-endorsing the other?

Ralph Nader

:roll:

if the Dems had their way, Nader wouldn't be around. His the Green Party honestly counted as an official party? How many states' ballots is he even on?

Would MoveOn be happy if a lot of people voted for Nader, thus splitting the Democratic vote? I doubt it.

They wouldn't be happy, no. But moveon.org's legal status prevents them from using softmoney from endorsing anybody, so they can only use softmoney to attack Bush. They CAN use hard money, small donations, with moveonPAC to support john kerry. All this is legal under current campaign finance law.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove

This is moveonpac.org, not moveon.org. Soros hasn't given money to moveonpac.org because that would be illegal. Giving softmoney to 527 branch is totally legal.

Calling Soros a democratic mouthpiece is IDIOTIC. The dude is a financial god who doesn't need puny little political parties.

So again, you have no clue concerning moveon OR campaign finance.

Oh - so people that have lots of money don't have any need for political parties? Hmmm - that's going to discredit a lot of your allies.

Wait - before you type your retort, I'll fill it in for you, so you can just cut 'n' paste:

Only Bush's cronies need political parties 'cause they're all too dumb to make money on their own.

There you go - I tried to save you some typing. :roll:

I'm sure there's *no link* at all between MoveOn PAC and MoveOn. :roll:

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Would the RNC be happy is David Duke ran and split the Republican vote?

I'm not sure why I'm justifying this with a response (especially considering you didn't have the courtesy to answer mine), but here goes:

I'm sure the GOP wouldn't really care if Duke ran - after all, if anything he'd take a lot of votes from the Dixiecrats.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove

This is moveonpac.org, not moveon.org. Soros hasn't given money to moveonpac.org because that would be illegal. Giving softmoney to 527 branch is totally legal.

Calling Soros a democratic mouthpiece is IDIOTIC. The dude is a financial god who doesn't need puny little political parties.

So again, you have no clue concerning moveon OR campaign finance.

Oh - so people that have lots of money don't have any need for political parties? Hmmm - that's going to discredit a lot of your allies.

Wait - before you type your retort, I'll fill it in for you, so you can just cut 'n' paste:

Only Bush's cronies need political parties 'cause they're all too dumb to make money on their own.

There you go - I tried to save you some typing. :roll:

I'm sure there's *no link* at all between MoveOn PAC and MoveOn. :roll:

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing, here. It is legal to have two sister organizations that work together, but collect and spend money in different ways. THAT IS LEGAL. So what's your point?

As for Soros. He doesn't need legislation for his business. He doesn't need a war to start to reap government contracts. He's a billionaire currency speculator. Do you know what that means? It means obtaining BILLIONS of dollars in capital in order to shift it from one currency to another in order to make marginal profit over fluctuations in the exchange rates. He has connections all over the globe. So, he is not a mouthpiece for anybody (which is what I was arguing).

So... your point?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Todd33
Would the RNC be happy is David Duke ran and split the Republican vote?

I'm not sure why I'm justifying this with a response (especially considering you didn't have the courtesy to answer mine), but here goes:

I'm sure the GOP wouldn't really care if Duke ran - after all, if anything he'd take a lot of votes from the Dixiecrats.

Dixiecrats disappeared, idiot. They turned into southern republicans. Zell Miller is probably the last national figure one could call a dixiecrat (a racist, conservative Democrat from the South), and he's supporting the republicans. Move along, you're out of your depth here.

 

[Perknose]

Thanks, presolve, for the link. Those commercials are ALL kick-ass.

There are actually more than ten of them, though they sort randomly and you get duplicates. Just keep hitting the "view next ad" link at the bottom if you get a duplicate. My favorite at this moment is the one where the woman says at the end. "I'm still a Baptist. But I'm no longer a Republican", but each one of those spots hits home like a ton of bricks. Each one.

Btw, where's the swat team for FuzzyBee? He just doesn't get it that MoveOn PAC is supported solely, by LAW, by the small donations of thousands of concerned Americans. The most big bad George Soros could give to this PAC is $5,000, and that is only if he hadn't contributed $20,000 in hard money to ALL other candidates and committees already this calendar year.

Yup. That George Bush IS a uniter, not a divider, and moveonPAC gives me hope for this country.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing, here. It is legal to have two sister organizations that work together, but collect and spend money in different ways. THAT IS LEGAL. So what's your point?

As for Soros. He doesn't need legislation for his business. He doesn't need a war to start to reap government contracts. He's a billionaire currency speculator. Do you know what that means? It means obtaining BILLIONS of dollars in capital in order to shift it from one currency to another in order to make marginal profit over fluctuations in the exchange rates. He has connections all over the globe. So, he is not a mouthpiece for anybody (which is what I was arguing).

So... your point?

What is illegal, though, is MoveOn shifting their softmoney to MoveOnPAC. It may not happen, but I'd bet it does. Heck - it could be so small as an extravagant "web design services" fee. They'd get a little more credit in my eye if they would just admit it. But who am I fooling? They don't want my vote - I think on my own.

Believe it or not, I do know what that currency speculators do. They gamble on the outcomes of chess games between countries. Y'know what? War affects that.

He has gambled here that Bush's policies will be anulled by him not being in office. He's out to make money. He's going to do whatever it takes to have Kerry in office. You'd better believe he'll toe a Democratic Party line to see that that is what happens.

Does he honestly want "anybody but Bush" - is he giving his money to see Nader be elected? Heck no.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: preslove

Dixiecrats disappeared, idiot. They turned into southern republicans. Zell Miller is probably the last national figure one could call a dixiecrat (a racist, conservative Democrat from the South), and he's supporting the republicans. Move along, you're out of your depth here.

When you have no explainations, you go for the name-calling. Thanks for that.

I am out of my depth here - I'm in the depth of courteous debate. I'm not sure exactly where you are, but it ain't there.

BTW, you might want to look at the DNC Vice-Presidential candidate, and then tell me that all of the "Dixiecrats" turned into southern Republicans. By "Dixiecrat", I am referring to the southern conservative Democrats, not the defunct Dixiecrat party (which, by all accounts, died in 1948 - when Zell Miller was only 16).

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove

I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing, here. It is legal to have two sister organizations that work together, but collect and spend money in different ways. THAT IS LEGAL. So what's your point?

As for Soros. He doesn't need legislation for his business. He doesn't need a war to start to reap government contracts. He's a billionaire currency speculator. Do you know what that means? It means obtaining BILLIONS of dollars in capital in order to shift it from one currency to another in order to make marginal profit over fluctuations in the exchange rates. He has connections all over the globe. So, he is not a mouthpiece for anybody (which is what I was arguing).

So... your point?

What is illegal, though, is MoveOn shifting their softmoney to MoveOnPAC. It may not happen, but I'd bet it does. Heck - it could be so small as an extravagant "web design services" fee. They'd get a little more credit in my eye if they would just admit it. But who am I fooling? They don't want my vote - I think on my own.

Moveon has raised millions in small donations, they wouldn't need to.

Believe it or not, I do know what that currency speculators do. They gamble on the outcomes of chess games between countries. Y'know what? War affects that.

Soros made a killing off of Japan's and South America's currency devaluations. There's no chess involved, just a good eye for overvalued currencies.

He has gambled here that Bush's policies will be anulled by him not being in office. He's out to make money. He's going to do whatever it takes to have Kerry in office. You'd better believe he'll toe a Democratic Party line to see that that is what happens.

Maybe you should re-write that. As it's written it makes absolutely no sense. Why would he toe the Democrats' line? If he really wanted to make money on the fluctuation of the Dollar he would help Bush and his cronies drive our country into debt.

Soros just doesn't want the idiot Bush in office. Everyone who isn't an idiotic conservative idealogue agrees with him.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: preslove

Dixiecrats disappeared, idiot. They turned into southern republicans. Zell Miller is probably the last national figure one could call a dixiecrat (a racist, conservative Democrat from the South), and he's supporting the republicans. Move along, you're out of your depth here.

When you have no explainations, you go for the name-calling. Thanks for that.

I am out of my depth here - I'm in the depth of courteous debate. I'm not sure exactly where you are, but it ain't there.

BTW, you might want to look at the DNC Vice-Presidential candidate, and then tell me that all of the "Dixiecrats" turned into southern Republicans. By "Dixiecrat", I am referring to the southern conservative Democrats, not the defunct Dixiecrat party (which, by all accounts, died in 1948 - when Zell Miller was only 16).

Yes, I was talking about conservative democrats, hence the parenthetical phrase. If you knew anything about southern politics from the 1970's to the 1990's, then you would know that, starting with Nixon and his Southern Strategy, the Republicans started reaching out to disaffected southern Democrats, using the quasi-racist statements of George Wallace (heard of him?). By the 1990's the Republicans had taken the solidly Democratic South and turned it solidly Republican. Dixiecrats turned into Dixie-Republican. Just look at the fvcking 2000 election results.

Here are some links, maybe you can learn something:

Text

Text

Text

Text

This is just a taste, moron.

 

[Todd33]

Can't we all just get along?