One BIG difference. Moveon.org is a blog.
The RNC IS the controlling arm of the Republican Party.

FireBreathingLiberal: One BIG difference. Moveon.org is a blog.
The RNC IS the controlling arm of the Republican Party.

MoveOn is a massive (^), well-funded lobbying organization with millions to spend in support of its agenda that also happens to have a blog.

But it was the rightwing grassroots' opposition to the RNC's preferred candidate in NY-23 that sparked the "Stalinist" (^) charge.

So your response is totally inapposite on both counts.

MuadDib: But it was the rightwing grassroots' opposition to the RNC's preferred candidate in NY-23 that sparked the "Stalinist" (^) charge.

Grassroots, my ass. Dick farking Army & FreedomWorks threw everything they could at that race.

Lundah: MuadDib: But it was the rightwing grassroots' opposition to the RNC's preferred candidate in NY-23 that sparked the "Stalinist" (^) charge.

Grassroots, my ass. Dick farking Army & FreedomWorks threw everything they could at that race.

What he said. Also, MoveOn is the big, bad wolf now, now? Is there anything you do not fear?

Seeing as how the Blue Dogs are doing their best to derail their own party's--and their president's--efforts on the signature issue of this era, it would be hypocritical to give them support.

I have a brilliant idea.

How about all the moderate Republicans tell the RNC and the Teabaggers and the Religious fundies to fark off, and the moderate Democrats tell the liberal moonbats and MoveOn.org to fark off, and then both groups get together to form their own party?

Moveon is no longer relevant and needs to shut its whore mouth.

Here's the difference, subby, since you apparently have the political comprehension of brine shrimp.

The liberals are looking to run primary challengers against incumbents that consistently vote like conservative Republicans. They're not going to run as independents against them in the main election. They're going to try to beat them in the primaries, which is part of a healthy democratic process.

The conservatives are looking to run primary challengers against incumbents that occasionally vote like moderate Republicans. And if they can't get them in the primary, they are more than happy to nuke the whole election (ala NY-23) by running as third party candidates.

But even if you strip away the difference between primary-ing your candidate and running in a different party to hand the election to the opposition party, the difference is degree. Neither Olympia Snowe nor Bob Nelson are at extreme ends of the spectrum. But you can look at Snowe's record and understand why she has an R after her name. You can't look at Nelson and understand why he has D.

So for the fifty-thousandth time on Fark: FALSE EQUIVALENCY IS FALSE.

Why do liberals call themselves "progressive?" There's nothing progressive about taking away all of our rights and replacing them with obligations. The progressive movement sees every advancement of human freedom, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, as a relic that must be done away with in the name of progress. I understand that someone who doesn't see that the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act actually took away the fundamental right to freedom of association isn't very bright to begin with, but how can anybody not see that the end result of the progressive movement is total slavery to the state? When you start seeing the government as an instrument to solve peoples' personal problems, you end up with the government solving ALL of peoples' problems (the very definition of progress), and that requires all of YOUR money and all of YOUR time, because the cost of solving the problems will bankrupt a large part of society (thus giving the state more problems to solve and more of your confiscated money/time). It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral into third world poverty, nothing more.

ScubaDude1960: Why do liberals call themselves "progressive?" There's nothing progressive about taking away all of our rights and replacing them with obligations. The progressive movement sees every advancement of human freedom, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, as a relic that must be done away with in the name of progress. I understand that someone who doesn't see that the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act actually took away the fundamental right to freedom of association isn't very bright to begin with, but how can anybody not see that the end result of the progressive movement is total slavery to the state? When you start seeing the government as an instrument to solve peoples' personal problems, you end up with the government solving ALL of peoples' problems (the very definition of progress), and that requires all of YOUR money and all of YOUR time, because the cost of solving the problems will bankrupt a large part of society (thus giving the state more problems to solve and more of your confiscated money/time). It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral into third world poverty, nothing more.

ZOMG THEY ARE UNDER MY BED!! THE LIBERALS!! QUICK SCUBADUDE!!! DON'T TOUCH THE GROUND OR THEY WILL GET YOU!!

That thing you are afraid of isn't real. Chill moran.

ScubaDude1960: It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral into third world poverty, nothing more.

Have you been to France? Or England? Or Switzerland for that matter? What ruined hell-scape of past great socialist nations exists in your addled mind?

ScubaDude1960: The progressive movement sees every advancement of human freedom, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, as a relic that must be done away with in the name of progress.

I'm sorry. Which President suspended habeas corpus again? What was his name? Buthe? Barsh? Bust? It sure seems like the right can't remember it lately either.

MoveOn is filled with nutjobs that, while having a decent message, go about it in completely the wrong way. Oh, and they haven't taken over the DNC leadership.

Once again, false equivalence is false.

ScubaDude1960: Why do liberals call themselves "progressive?" There's nothing progressive about taking away all of our rights and replacing them with obligations. The progressive movement sees every advancement of human freedom, from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, as a relic that must be done away with in the name of progress. I understand that someone who doesn't see that the so-called 1964 Civil Rights Act actually took away the fundamental right to freedom of association isn't very bright to begin with, but how can anybody not see that the end result of the progressive movement is total slavery to the state? When you start seeing the government as an instrument to solve peoples' personal problems, you end up with the government solving ALL of peoples' problems (the very definition of progress), and that requires all of YOUR money and all of YOUR time, because the cost of solving the problems will bankrupt a large part of society (thus giving the state more problems to solve and more of your confiscated money/time). It's a self-perpetuating downward spiral into third world poverty, nothing more.

So you either own a lunch counter, or drive a bus. Which could it be?

vartian: Lundah: MuadDib: But it was the rightwing grassroots' opposition to the RNC's preferred candidate in NY-23 that sparked the "Stalinist" (^) charge.

Grassroots, my ass. Dick farking Army & FreedomWorks threw everything they could at that race.

What he said. Also, MoveOn is the big, bad wolf now, now? Is there anything you do not fear?

I don't fear MoveOn. I encourage their purge for exactly the same reasons we've heard so many times around here with respect to, say, Dede v. Hoffman.

But it is disingenuous in the extreme to say they're just a blog. And it's flat-out wrong to say that the RNC is the force pushing back against "moderates" when it was the RNC backing the one that just lost out to the conservative insurgent.

I'm sorry if stating simple facts strikes you as fear.


aden_nak: ScubaDude1960:

I'm sorry. Which President suspended habeas corpus again? What was his name? Buthe? Barsh? Bust? It sure seems like the right can't remember it lately either.

Lincoln. HTH.

Why do Republicans keep complain about being referred to as "Stalinist" when they're the only ones using the term?

kmmontandon: Why do Republicans keep complain about being referred to as "Stalinist" when they're the only ones using the term?

Frank Rich is a Republican now?!? (^again^)

kmmontandon: Why do Republicans keep complain about being referred to as "Stalinist" when they're the only ones using the term?

They like having the persecution complex.

vartian: Lundah: MuadDib: But it was the rightwing grassroots' opposition to the RNC's preferred candidate in NY-23 that sparked the "Stalinist" (^) charge.

Grassroots, my ass. Dick farking Army & FreedomWorks threw everything they could at that race.

What he said. Also, MoveOn is the big, bad wolf now, now? Is there anything you do not fear?

But...but...but... GEORGE SOROS!

kmmontandon: Why do Republicans keep complain about being referred to as "Stalinist" when they're the only ones using the term?

they really preferred "Hitleresque", but it didn't catch on.

Parties in power tend to become less moderate until they lose power.

Parties out of power tend to become more moderate until they gain power.

Moveon.org isn't doing something that I would approve of if I were a political consultant, but they are doing something that has happened forever. Also, I'm not a political consultant.

Comparing this to the Hoffman candidacy "Brought to you by RedState Tryke Force and Freedomworks, Inc. Remember: If you want your anger to be Authentic-esque, choose Freedomworks. And if you need people to send you useful items caked in a layer of froth, nobody strikes like the RedState Strike Force" is silly.

It's like someone who is unemployed buying a new plasma TV because his Doctor bought one.

msannomalley [TotalFark]
Maybe the best that can happen out of this is a real third party, not just a group of nut jobs. I wish for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party. I could be called commonsense. When I say socially liberal I mean people should be left do what they want if they do not harm others, fiscally conservative means only spend what you take in, and take in as little as possible. Stop rewarding sloth and punishing success could be a mantra.

Barbigazi: Moveon is no longer relevant and needs to shut its whore mouth.

Didn't you hear from the idiot above, they CAN'T BE STOPPED!!!

/freepers need to work on their memes

GAT_00: MoveOn is filled with nutjobs that, while having a decent message, go about it in completely the wrong way. Oh, and they haven't taken over the DNC leadership.

Once again, false equivalence is false.

Bingo.

"Stupid org that use to matter excuses stupid orgs on the rise"

Moveon.org is not an elected politician or even a member of the Democratic party.