Liberals attempting to silence opposing opinions

[scribblet]

But that is an attempt to shut up free speech!!! To actively pursue the sponsors of a station who's viewpoint you don't like in order to make them stop broadcasting. Good grief, it's as plain as day. I don't know if you saw my earlier comment, but it's also completely hypocritical of the left. When conservatives are protesting some lewd content on TV, the left always says to just turn the channel. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the left will not simply change the channel, they want to shut down the channel Chavez style.

Exactly, double standards again. The liberals must very insecure and afraid that they will be seen for what they are as it is obvious they are bent on not letting people hear an opposing view point. Totalitarians are afraid of the people.

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds as if those on the right accusing the left of trying to stifle Fox News think MoveOn is wrong for expressing their opinion and acting on their beliefs. You all wouldn't be thinking MoveOn should be silenced from expressing their views, would you? Because if you truly believe in free speech, as you seem to be claiming you do, then you should be defending MoveOn's right to express their views rather than criticizing them for it.

And in that light, since it's MoveOn that's allegedly trying to "silence" Fox, not "liberals" (as a Democrat I am considered a liberal and I have no part in this, nor do any other liberals I know), I don't understand why the title of this thread isn't "MoveOn attempting to silence opposing opinions."

[B. Max]

I don't understand why the title of this thread isn't "MoveOn attempting to silence opposing opinions."

Then it really should be George Soros attempting to silence free speech, because he is the money man behind Move On. A man who hates fox news and America as well.

[SkyhookJackson]

I am a proud liberal and I do not want to see the "Fairness Doctrine" enacted. If Faux News had to provide the opposite side of an issue (truth), it would take all the fun out of things. I love it when they put Mark Foley up on the screen and identify him as a Democrat. They did it to Arlen Specter the other day. It's a riot that O'Reilly is in a tizzy over some demon leftie referring to the pope as a "primate." He needs to get a dictionary. The pope IS a primate. The hate that comes out of the right wing media is the best free advertising liberals can get. (Although, I admit, I've never understood the Log Cabin Republicans.)

[Guest American Woman]

I don't understand why the title of this thread isn't "MoveOn attempting to silence opposing opinions."

Then it really should be George Soros attempting to silence free speech, because he is the money man behind Move On. A man who hates fox news and America as well.

I have to wonder why some of you on the right are having such a difficult time with presenting this issue factually. It's MoveOn, not liberals or Soros, who is taking issue with Fox News; and I feel it bears repeating that they are not trying to silence Fox News, but are in fact objecting to their claim that they are "fair and balanced." So in reality, there is nothing truthful about the title of this thread.

Fact is, while Soros contributed a large sum of money to MoveOn during the last presidential election, he didn't contribute the majority of the money; therefore one can hardly say MoveOn's opinion is synonymous with Soros' opinion, as you are claiming. Furthermore, I know of no further contributions since the election. Do you? Lastly, MoveOn was in existance before Soros' donation, so they didn't suddenly became a mouthpiece for him. Point in case, it wasn't Soros who was quoted in any of the articles I've read about this.

So Soros hates Fox News. That's his right, and as far as I'm concerned, perfectly understandable. He hardly hates America, though, unless you think hating what the Bush administration has done is synonymous with hating America; in which case you'd be wrong.

[sharkman]

Uh, starting a DATABASE on all sponsors in order to begin a strategized phone campaign of said advertisers is a tiny bit more than merely objecting to a marketing moniker of 'fair and balanced', For the third time, why don't liberals (who do you think reads Moveon, conservatives?) simply change the frickin channel if they don't like the bias, which is exactly what they tell conservatives to do when something objectionable comes on conservatives don't like? Expressing views is one thing, trying to stifle free speech is wrong, no matter who's doing it left, right or whatever.

AM, have you been shadowing Soros that you know the amounts he's given to Moveon? Or are you just guessing?

[Guest American Woman]

Uh, starting a DATABASE on all sponsors in order to begin a strategized phone campaign of said advertisers is a tiny bit more than merely objecting to a marketing moniker of 'fair and balanced', For the third time, why don't liberals (who do you think reads Moveon, conservatives?) simply change the frickin channel if they don't like the bias, which is exactly what they tell conservatives to do when something objectionable comes on conservatives don't like? Expressing views is one thing, trying to stifle free speech is wrong, no matter who's doing it left, right or whatever.

AM, have you been shadowing Soros that you know the amounts he's given to Moveon? Or are you just guessing?

I said that he has not contributed to MoveOn since the presidential election as far as I know. That's not a guess, that's a statement of fact. I'll ask you now. Has he contributed any money that you know of? His goal was to have Bush defeated; that's what he was contributing to. I haven't read that he's a great fan of MoveOn outside of defeating Bush. Have you?

And fyi, even though the members of MoveOn may be liberals, that doesn't mean they speak for "liberals" any more than, say, Billy Graham speaks for Christians even though his audience consists of Christians or any more than the Catholic Church speaks for Christians.

So the question/statement should read: why doesn't MoveOn simply change the channel if they don't like the bias, which is exactly what MoveOn tells conservatives to do when something objectional comes on that conservatives don't like (in which case you'd have to cite instances where MoveOn has done that).

But one last time: MoveOn is not objecting to Fox's content, they are objecting to that content being presented as "fair and balanced;" they are, in effect, concerned with "truth in advertising."

Edited July 29, 2007 by American Woman

[B. Max]

But one last time: MoveOn is not objecting to Fox's content, they are objecting to that content being presented as "fair and balanced;" they are, in effect, concerned with "truth in advertising."

I also would like to know just how you know exactly what Soros has been contributing to Move On. How much did he give them.

Whether fox is fair and balanced is none of Move On's business. I think the whole idea of fair and balanced is stupid to begin with. Move On are after fox because they exposed Gore as a fraud and a phony, along with a host of other left wing craziness, even exposing Jessie Jackson as a shake down artist.

Edited July 30, 2007 by B. Max

[jefferiah]

But one last time: MoveOn is not objecting to Fox's content, they are objecting to that content being presented as "fair and balanced;" they are, in effect, concerned with "truth in advertising."

I am not a scientist American Woman, so I don't know much about it. But if there are scientists out there who dispute the Global Warming belief why should they not be allowed to present their arguments. When you get into this game of deciding who is telling the truth as pertains to freedom of the press you open a dangerous door.

[sharkman]

I said that he has not contributed to MoveOn since the presidential election as far as I know. That's not a guess, that's a statement of fact. I'll ask you now. Has he contributed any money that you know of? His goal was to have Bush defeated; that's what he was contributing to. I haven't read that he's a great fan of MoveOn outside of defeating Bush. Have you?

And fyi, even though the members of MoveOn may be liberals, that doesn't mean they speak for "liberals" any more than, say, Billy Graham speaks for Christians even though his audience consists of Christians or any more than the Catholic Church speaks for Christians.

So the question/statement should read: why doesn't MoveOn simply change the channel if they don't like the bias, which is exactly what MoveOn tells conservatives to do when something objectional comes on that conservatives don't like (in which case you'd have to cite instances where MoveOn has done that).

But one last time: MoveOn is not objecting to Fox's content, they are objecting to that content being presented as "fair and balanced;" they are, in effect, concerned with "truth in advertising."

I just want to point out that you are stating as fact something that you are guessing at, in regards to what Soros has given to Moveon. I will not offer up a guess, and admit I do not know.

Don't kid yourself, Moveon speaks for liberals like the Pope speaks for Catholics.

And Moveon would LOVE to see Fox silenced. Come on, this is just the first in attempted murder by a thousand small cuts.

[scribblet]

Of course they do, not to mention daily kos, although I would hope they are not representative of the left, because that site is pretty hateful.

Its about silencing opposing views just as some democrats want to re-instate the 'Fairness Doctrine" another blatent attempt to silence conservative stations.

[scribblet]

oops wrong forum

Edited August 4, 2007 by scriblett

[Guest American Woman]

I just want to point out that you are stating as fact something that you are guessing at, in regards to what Soros has given to Moveon. I will not offer up a guess, and admit I do not know.

Don't kid yourself, Moveon speaks for liberals like the Pope speaks for Catholics.

And Moveon would LOVE to see Fox silenced. Come on, this is just the first in attempted murder by a thousand small cuts.

Did you read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again. "He has not contributed to MoveOn since the presidential election as far as I know," and that IS a fact. I'm not saying it's a fact that he hasn't contributed since the presidential election, I'm saying it's a fact that he hasn't as far as I know. So I too, admit I do not know if he has or hasn't. I then asked if anyone else knows any differently, meaning it's possible that he has, and if he has, I want to be informed about it.

But I wasn't "guessing." I was basing it on the information I have. If you have no further information, and can't find it either, my statement was a fair statement based on the information that I could find. Link

Political Campaign Contributions by George Soros (1999 to Present) - $3,232,876

REPUBLICAN:0% DEMOCRAT:16%

Contributed To Party $ Amt Date

AYDELOTT FOR CONGRESS, INC Democrat 2,100 11/11/2006

KLEEB FOR CONGRESS Democrat 2,100 11/06/2006

JOHN HALL FOR CONGRESS Democrat 1,400 11/03/2006

FRIENDS OF DAN MAFFEI Democrat 2,000 10/20/2006

CAMPAIGN MONEY WATCH -- 100,000 07/28/2006

FRIENDS OF TAMMY DUCKWORTH Democrat 1,000 07/27/2006

SESTAK FOR CONGRESS Democrat 1,000 07/27/2006

MAJORITY ACTION -- 120,000 07/21/2006

PATRICK MURPHY FOR CONGRESS Democrat 1,000 07/20/2006

DONNA EDWARDS FOR CONGRESS Democrat 1,000 06/15/2006

NED LAMONT FOR SENATE Democrat 1,000 06/10/2006

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Democrat 20,000 03/30/2006

AYDELOTT FOR CONGRESS, INC Democrat 2,100 03/24/2006

AYDELOTT FOR CONGRESS, INC Democrat 2,100 03/24/2006

DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE Democrat 1,000 02/02/2006

FRIENDS OF SHERROD BROWN Democrat 2,100 12/15/2005

CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS Democrat 2,100 12/12/2005

CRANLEY FOR CONGRESS Democrat 2,100 12/12/2005

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Democrat 20,466 09/30/2005

CANTWELL 2012 Democrat 2,100 09/30/2005

CANTWELL 2012 Democrat 2,100 09/30/2005

CANTWELL 2006 Democrat 2,100 09/30/2005

CANTWELL 2006 Democrat 2,100 09/30/2005

BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE Democrat 2,100 09/29/2005

BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE Democrat 2,100 09/29/2005

BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE Democrat 2,100 09/29/2005

BOB CASEY FOR PENNSYLVANIA COMMITTEE Democrat 2,100 09/29/2005

MCCASKILL FOR MISSOURI Democrat 2,100 09/28/2005

MCCASKILL FOR MISSOURI Democrat 2,100 09/28/2005

FRIENDS OF HILLARY Democrat 1,250 09/22/2005

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Democrat 20,466 09/19/2005

FRIENDS OF HILLARY Democrat 2,100 09/16/2005

FRIENDS OF HILLARY Democrat 2,100 09/16/2005

SALAZAR FOR SENATE Democrat 2,000 10/30/2004

SALAZAR FOR SENATE Democrat 2,000 10/30/2004

TONY KNOWLES FOR US SENATE Democrat 2,000 10/09/2004

INEZ TENENBAUM FOR US SENATE Democrat 2,000 09/30/2004

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Democrat 25,000 09/30/2004

SALAZAR FOR SENATE Democrat 2,000 08/09/2004

HILL PAC -- 5,000 08/03/2004

BRAD CARSON FOR SENATE Democrat 2,000 07/27/2004

OBAMA FOR ILLINOIS INC Democrat 395 07/23/2004

DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE Democrat 25,000 06/30/2004

PEOPLE FOR PATTY MURRAY U S SENATE CAMPAIGN Democrat 1,000 06/28/2004

ERSKINE BOWLES FOR US SENATE Democrat 2,000 06/04/2004

MAIN STREET INDIVIDUAL FUND -- -50,000 04/29/2004

MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND -- 1,044,285 03/09/2004

So I repeat: Soros has not given any money to MoveOn since the presidential election as far as I know, and again, I invite anyone to show otherwise.

And no. MoveOn does NOT speak for liberals the way the Pope speaks for Catholics. MoveOn speaks for members of MoveOn the way the Pope speaks for members of the Catholic church. Liberals as an entire group don't support/agree with MoveOn any more than Christians as an entire group support/agree with the Pope.

As for whether or not MoveOn would "love to see Fox silenced," that's really beside the point because that's not what they are trying to do. This has been pointed out repeatedly now. They want to see the "fair and balanced" slogan removed. They are not trying to silence them.

Of course they do, not to mention daily kos, although I would hope they are not representative of the left, because that site is pretty hateful.

I'm not familiar with daily kos; isn't it just a blog? I'm glad to see you're not claiming that they are representative of the left just because their viewpoint is (apparently) left.

[sharkman]

AM, did you understand what my comments meant? YOUR phrase, " as far as I know", was not absolute. Plain and simple. You were stating that Soros MAY have donated without your knowledge. That is all I was pointing out. The fact that you did not know for 100% sure. I feel bad that you went to all of the trouble to dig up all of those names. Now we know beyond a doubt what the official word is.

[Guest American Woman]

AM, did you understand what my comments meant? YOUR phrase, " as far as I know", was not absolute. Plain and simple. You were stating that Soros MAY have donated without your knowledge. That is all I was pointing out. The fact that you did not know for 100% sure. I feel bad that you went to all of the trouble to dig up all of those names. Now we know beyond a doubt what the official word is.

No need to feel bad. It took me about two minutes to do a search to find my information/source BEFORE I said what I did; I repeat yet again that I stated nothing as fact, much less something that I was guessing on. You made a false accusation against me.

One more time: I added "to my knowledge" because I didn't know, as you seem to know "beyond a doubt," that this one site holds all the information as to what Soros has donated. But since you've now declared that we know "beyond a doubt what the official word is," thanks for saying that I was right-- and you, in effect, were wrong.