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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

Liberals are in the locket of big Lava Monster, it's a well known fact

Liberals are in the pocket of big Lava Monster, they keep a picture of the Lava Monster in the locket. Also in a frame by their bed.

Hmmm...I thought I was librul, but I am unfamiliar with this Lava Monster.

What can I do to be in line with Lava Monster ideology?

Liberals know how to use couch cushions.

I don't want the Dems to go nuts and start knocking off Blue Dogs. As annoying as they are, they are the only viable opposition in the government right now.

That said, if MoveOn wants to knock off Lieberman, go for it.

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

MoveOn even purged the evidence of their purge!

brainiac-dumdum: Mentat: I don't want the Dems to go nuts and start knocking off Blue Dogs. As annoying as they are, they are the only viable opposition in the government right now.

That said, if MoveOn wants to knock off Lieberman, go for it.

this, especially the Lieberman bit.

Well, you all have incontrovertibly confirmed the snark in the headline.

Well done.

MuadDib: Well, you all have incontrovertibly confirmed the snark in the headline.

Well done.

Fark Lieberman. He's a mercenary. You can at least make the argument that the other Blue Dogs do what they do out of a sense of conviction or political necessity, but Lieberman's just a dick.

Mentat: MuadDib: Well, you all have incontrovertibly confirmed the snark in the headline.

Well done.

Fark Lieberman. He's a mercenary. You can at least make the argument that the other Blue Dogs do what they do out of a sense of conviction or political necessity, but Lieberman's just a dick.


So you don't think Lieberman bucked his party to stick to a POV almost all of his fellows (see, eg., Hillary and Kerry) abandoned as soon as it became politically inexpedient, and has continued to maintain that POV even though it's caused him no end of trouble, out of a sense of conviction?

Interesting.

MuadDib: So you don't think Lieberman bucked his party to stick to a POV almost all of his fellows (see, eg., Hillary and Kerry) abandoned as soon as it became politically inexpedient, and has continued to maintain that POV even though it's caused him no end of trouble, out of a sense of conviction?

Nope.

Mentat: MuadDib: So you don't think Lieberman bucked his party to stick to a POV almost all of his fellows (see, eg., Hillary and Kerry) abandoned as soon as it became politically inexpedient, and has continued to maintain that POV even though it's caused him no end of trouble, out of a sense of conviction?

Nope.


But a Blue Dog who does what he does out of a sense of "political necessity" isn't a mercenary and can be excused?

I sense some cognitive dissonance.

MuadDib: But a Blue Dog who does what he does out of a sense of "political necessity" isn't a mercenary and can be excused?

I sense some cognitive dissonance.

I said one could make that argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it. Notice how I only singled out Lieberman.

Mentat: MuadDib: But a Blue Dog who does what he does out of a sense of "political necessity" isn't a mercenary and can be excused?

I sense some cognitive dissonance.

I said one could make that argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it. Notice how I only singled out Lieberman.

Fair enough. But, in all due respect, I don't see how Lieberman deserves such singling out. He stuck with his support for the war and was hammered for it - up to and including a serious, well-funded attempt to wrest his seat from him. And so he's somewhat less loyal now. Chicken or egg?

MuadDib: Fair enough. But, in all due respect, I don't see how Lieberman deserves such singling out. He stuck with his support for the war and was hammered for it - up to and including a serious, well-funded attempt to wrest his seat from him. And so he's somewhat less loyal now. Chicken or egg?

He chose to side with the neocons on the war. That fair, but his constituents decided that wasn't what they wanted from their Senator. They chose a different candidate in a fair primary, at which point Lieberman told them to go fark themselves. All of the conservatives who had been mocking him 6 years earlier when he ran as the Democratic Veep nominee were suddenly his best friends and they got him elected. Having pulled that stunt, he then came crawling back to the Dems when they retook the Congress and begged and pleading for them to let him keep his committee assignment and seniority in exchange for his vote. They gave it to him and 2 years later, he was standing on the floor of the GOP national convention criticizing the Democratic nominee while angling for the GOP Veep spot behind the scenes. When that didn't work, he came crawling back again begging Harry Reid and Obama not to strip him of his committee assignment in exchange for his vote. When they yielded, he turned around and threatened to join the GOP to kill the public option that he had ran on two years before.

So why exactly should the Dems trust him?

Mentat: MuadDib: Fair enough. But, in all due respect, I don't see how Lieberman deserves such singling out. He stuck with his support for the war and was hammered for it - up to and including a serious, well-funded attempt to wrest his seat from him. And so he's somewhat less loyal now. Chicken or egg?


So why exactly should the Dems trust him?

Well, I didn't know we were talking about trust. But I take your point: He doesn't stay bought.

I just remember telling leftie friends during the 2004 primaries (well before most of the stuff in your post happened) that I wasn't too keen on voting for Bush and if they nominated someone like him I would seriously consider voting for him. And, pretty much to a man, they all said, "But he's practically a Republican!" Which is, of course, absurd. So the chicken and egg problem is still there.