Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

okie wrote:

The standby rate does not allow the buyer to dictate the day the ad is run. Obviously the paper ran the ad on the very day that Moveon wanted.

Where and when did I ever say I was against Moveon running ads? You continue to make stuff up, Parados.

What do you think "standby" means okie? It means you can ask for a day and IF there is space it will run that day.

Flying standby means I get to choose which flight I want to fly on and if there is room I get on that flight. If there isn't room then I get bumped to a later flight. I have never NOT made my first choice flight when I have flown standby. I guess the airlines must have given me special treatment because I am a liberal.

I am not the one making stuff up okie. It seems to be you. Ever flown standby? Know anyone that has flown standby? Ask them if they decided which flight was their first choice.

What part of this tells you that they can NOT ask for a certain day?

Quote:

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the newspaper does not base its ad rates on political content. She also said that the paper cannot disclose what it charges for individual ads. But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

You said it should be "illegal" concerning the MoveOn ad. I assumed you meant the ad itself since we already knew that they had not received a discount not available to anyone else. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you would be able to understand the meaning of "standby" which is easy to understand for anyone that has ever flown.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

You said it should be "illegal" concerning the MoveOn ad. I assumed you meant the ad itself since we already knew that they had not received a discount not available to anyone else. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you would be able to understand the meaning of "standby" which is easy to understand for anyone that has ever flown.

There you go assuming something I didn't say. It is my opinion that it should be illegal for businesses to grant obvious political ads special rates without some kind of law that requires it to be reported as a political contribution. It seems like an awfully large discount that just now happens to be a policy. I wonder how long this has been in effect, Parados, and how long it will stay in effect? If you believe the NYT, go ahead, but I don't. And just a little research indicates the NYT would not even run ads from other advocacy groups in the past, which reveals their bias and special treatment of Moveon. They are willing to publish an ad accusing Petraeus of being a betrayer, but they were not willing to run an ad by the Swift Boat people about a man that called virtually every Vietnam Vet of committing atrocities. You don't find that at all strange do you?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12023

0 Replies

Do I find it strange that the American Spectator is running a smear piece? Not at all.

But even that piece confirms what I said about standby

Quote:

... the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.

I find it interesting that you ads about people running for office are the same as ads about issues.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Do I find it strange that the American Spectator is running a smear piece? Not at all.

But even that piece confirms what I said about standby

Quote:
... the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.

I find it interesting that you ads about people running for office are the same as ads about issues.

When moveon.org accuses Petraeus of being a betrayer, it isn't a "smear."

And when the Spectator simply points out a fact, that the NYT would not run ads they don't like, that is a "smear."

I guess accusing somebody of betrayal, that somebody that serves the country and sacrifices his very life for the country and you by the way to say whatever you please, of betrayal, an accusation that is not substantiated with any fact is not a "smear," but somebody that simply points out a fact about what the NYT has done conclerning moveon is a "smear." You have a very weird view of the world, Parados.

0 Replies

Okie,

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5694

There's plenty of corruption to go around...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bundling is one thing, cyclops, but in Hsu's case, there is evidence that Hsu may have given the people the money in the first place that he later bundled. In other words, he may have been only using them in a grand and corrupt campaign money raising scheme. So aside from whether the contributors are crooked or have committed crimes, the way in which the money is handled or possibly laundered during the bundling and donated is completely another matter.

0 Replies

Hillary said she was giving the money to "charity".
Has anyone seen any evidence of that?
What charities?
Where are the receipts, the cancelled checks?

What proof is there that she gave any of that money away or back to the original donors?

0 Replies

Proof would be nice from the woman that claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, although she was born several years before Edmund Hillary even became famous.

0 Replies

Proof would be nice from the person that claimed there is no such thing as a "standby" rate at the NYTimes but then quotes a piece that contains evidence that it exists.

0 Replies

I doubt very seriously that conservative groups could get the so called standby rate as easily as moveon, and in fact there are apparently past examples where they couldn't even get an ad at all at the NYT, Parados. But if I want to call Petraeus a betrayer on the very day that his testimony is taking place, I can not only get the ad right on the day I want it published, but also pay less then half price for it.

0 Replies

Let's all be like okie and pretend "standby" has no meaning in the real world. Rolling Eyes

Because MoveOn may have got the date they wanted is NOT proof of any conspiracy. It is only proof that the NYTimes had space available. (You still haven't shown that MoveOn specifically wanted Monday. Sunday would have been a better day with a wider readership.)

0 Replies

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14paper.html?ex=1347422400&en=4cea65099d0fd7a2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"Freedom's Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom's Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: "The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad. " Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given "preferential treatment" on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran."

And here is another opinion that is far more believable than the New York Times.

http://news.speeple.com/sweetness-light.com/2007/09/15/nyt-gives-secret-standby-rate-for-lefty-ads.htm

Parados, do you think everybody is dumb enough to believe your lawyerly defense of any and all of your liberal institutions? Not that it really matters, because it is just more of the same old reinvention of history.

But more importantly, this moveon ad is only a sideshow compared to the weightier problems of Hillary's corrupt fundraising.

0 Replies

That (the above) has been proven incorrect. Even the thread about it died here afterwards.

0 Replies

Sure sure, Walter, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, uh huh, yes sure, ha ha. Of course, the NYT would make their discounts very known to everyone and make sure the same price was offered to everyone NOW, and of course make sure the requested ad was placed in the chosen section of the paper on a chosen day, now that they have been called on it. At least some of us have been around the block enough times to know how this stuff works, and was working until this whole moveon.org issue came to light.

Some of you here continue to make grand conclusions of fact in the face of contrary information.

And Parados would probably maintain there is no liberal bias in the media, which is another myth that liberals want to believe.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Sure sure, Walter, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, uh huh, yes sure, ha ha. Of course, the NYT would make their discounts very known to everyone and make sure the same price was offered to everyone NOW, and of course make sure the requested ad was placed in the chosen section of the paper on a chosen day, now that they have been called on it.

You realize that you sound a bit like Zippo over on one of the "The Government Was Behind 9/11" threads, don't you?

0 Replies

oe, it is some of your fellow libs that agree with Zippo. Nice try, oe, but not even close. Remember, it is the great Michael Moore and other whackos that are credible in the liberal camp. And talk about whacko, moveon.org probably sympathizes with Zippo. Yep, thats your NYT alright.

0 Replies

Now word has it that Norman Hsu intended on showing up in court. He just got on the wrong train! ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/18/state/n202556D09.DTL

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Sure sure, Walter, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, uh huh, yes sure, ha ha. Of course, the NYT would make their discounts very known to everyone and make sure the same price was offered to everyone NOW, and of course make sure the requested ad was placed in the chosen section of the paper on a chosen day, now that they have been called on it.

You realize that you sound a bit like Zippo over on one of the "The Government Was Behind 9/11" threads, don't you?

There seems little chance that either okie or zippo will ever be able to comprehend how like each other they are.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

oe, it is some of your fellow libs that agree with Zippo.

Sure.

And some of your fellow conservatives agree with gungasnake.

Other fellow libs have had lengthy discussions with Zippo and have disputed his <ahem> interesting ideas...

okie wrote:

Nice try, oe, but not even close.

I'd say it's pretty close. You make allegations that have been refuted, you make claims that cannot be verified, and based on your own allegations and claims you form an opinion.

Same modus operandi as with the 9/11 nut jobs.

okie wrote:

Remember, it is the great Michael Moore and other whackos that are credible in the liberal camp.

Really? I've seen quite a number of posters here on A2K (that you'd very likely label "liberals") who disagree with Michael Moore, or with the way he's selectively using facts.

The problem is that you have to imagine some kind of "liberal" that you then can argue against - because the image you're drawing of "all liberals" is not supported by reality.

okie wrote:

And talk about whacko, moveon.org probably sympathizes with Zippo.

There you go again. Claims, without proof. Allegations without evidence. Way to go, okie.

okie wrote:

Yep, thats your NYT alright.

Uh-huh.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
oe, it is some of your fellow libs that agree with Zippo.

Sure.

And some of your fellow conservatives agree with gungasnake.

Other fellow libs have had lengthy discussions with Zippo and have disputed his <ahem> interesting ideas...

Good, I'm glad you see through Zippo's strange theories. As far as Gungasnake, I don't know or recall what all he has posted here. In general, I agree with him that the Clintons are crooks. As to each and every claim that Gunga claims on a particular issue, I would have to look at it and see if I agree or not, but I doubt very seriously that I agree with everything he believes. As to conspiracy theories in regard to the Clintons, lets take Vince Foster as an example, I don't know about what really happened there, suffice it to say the case still is shrouded in ambiguous evidence and events with conflicting and strange things about it. I realize the official investigations proved nothing sinister, I accept that, but I am still suspicious.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Nice try, oe, but not even close.

I'd say it's pretty close. You make allegations that have been refuted, you make claims that cannot be verified, and based on your own allegations and claims you form an opinion.

Same modus operandi as with the 9/11 nut jobs.

You will have to name an issue where you think this applies, and I don't think you have any.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Remember, it is the great Michael Moore and other whackos that are credible in the liberal camp.

Really? I've seen quite a number of posters here on A2K (that you'd very likely label "liberals") who disagree with Michael Moore, or with the way he's selectively using facts.

The problem is that you have to imagine some kind of "liberal" that you then can argue against - because the image you're drawing of "all liberals" is not supported by reality.

The difference is that Michael Moore had a prominent seat at the DNC, and he was given credence by numerous prominent Democrats.

Quote:

okie wrote:
And talk about whacko, moveon.org probably sympathizes with Zippo.

There you go again. Claims, without proof. Allegations without evidence. Way to go, okie.

I said "probably," which does not imply proof. Remember, Howard Dean gave prominence to the sort of theory like what Zippo believes, that Bush knew about 911 before it happened. Moveon has some very extreme ideas, and their ad in the NYT demonstrates that, and Democratic candidates do not disavow moveon, and in fact they are highly indebted to them and get their marching orders from them.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Yep, thats your NYT alright.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh

0 Replies

Democrat / Clinton fundraising scandals continue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know