and whats wrong with the "anti war left"?

The problem is the Campaign Finance bill. This thing is hydra-headed because the root is deep and growing.

Speaking of roots deep and growing.
==================================

The IRS can remove the tax exempt status faster than they awarded it. Obtained by fraud, cancel it immediately. They're (VoteVet.org) own books are all that is needed to wipe them out and give the officers of the organization a free vacation in the hotel of many bars (steel).

Man, Lorie, you're setting out the troll bait this morning.

I think I'll just sit back and watch them flock here. -lol-

The organization is votevets.org (plural).

I wonder if that is a response to the swift boat ads that were run several years ago?

Gee, a Democratic group targeting Republicans. I'll keep an eye on them while you call the police.

Now, a really odd mission is that of the Victory Caucus, implanted into the Republican Party via the American Enterprise Institute, to enforce right-thinking. Republicans targeting Republicans.

The votevets.org is organized under the IRS code 501(c)(4) where the Swiftboat vets org is a "527" organization.

A right wing group organized similarly to votevets.org would be "Move America Forward", which is a 501(c)(3) organization, subject to very similar rules as VoteVets.org.

If VoteVets should lose it's non-profit tax status, so should Move America Forward, imho.

Votevets.org is a group funded by George Soros.
On Newshour with PBS the spokesperson for the group not only doesn't deny that but also proves to be oon aroogant SOB.

Here is an excerpt from the PBS show-

MELANIE MORGAN: Judy, what we're doing right now is pointing out on television and across the country -- and we've held hundreds of rallies. We have aired over two dozen commercials. And we are unveiling a new commercial coming up this Friday, and it is called "The Choice is Clear."

We make it powerfully and visually apparent to everybody that, if we don't win in Iraq, we are going to lose America. It's that simple.

And let me also say that I certainly would hope that the Democrats, if they're planning their strategy meetings with people like Mr. Soltz and MoveOn.org, others who are meeting daily in telephone conference calls, which we are not, by the way, on our side, that al-Qaida is listening to their results, as well.

And I would really hope that they could put that energy into defeating the enemy rather than to accommodate some sort of political score, some sort of game to them to win elections in '08. And that's what we are doing.

We are doing rallies, e-mails. We have a complete strategy in place. And we will fight organizations like VoteVet.org and MoveOn.org. We don't have the millions of dollars in funding that George Soros has given them, but we have the hearts and will of American people.

[...]

MELANIE MORGAN: Well, it's nice to know that you really believe in the fearsome firepower of al-Qaida and in their ability to win a war. And I think what you're saying is shameful and really disrespectful to our troops.

JON SOLTZ: You're undermining our troops in the field right now by these comments...

JON SOLTZ: I am the troops.

PBS Newshour

As for General Batiste he was the SENIOR MILITARY ADVISOR to then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz for the year prior to the war in Iraq.He was one of the head military planners. Is he now second guessing his own professional advise...?

Now that he isn't getting paid for it- he might be shopping for another career.

Votevets.org is the group that ran all DEMOCRAT opponents to Republican House members last election cycle.

Rory...you deceiving hack, nice job pasting together your excerpts to destroy the context of the PBS Newshour from which you quote.

And, "JON SOLTZ: I am the troops." is not what Soltz said. He said, in response to that P.O.S. kook rightie extremist bwitch, Melanie Morgan, "We are the troops."

Melanie Morgan is one of your demented kook right radio-propaganda hosts from SF, and if anything, makes Malkin almost appear to be civilized.

To paraphrase Lorie above, Rory, if you root in shit (Melanie Morgan) it's apt to be on your breath.

Nice Wieder, class act.

We all know how truthful and forthright PBS and any George Soros group is...LOLOLOL

Furthermore, Rory, Morgan's reference to Soros' funding of VoteVets is no different from the other totally absurd and delusional crap she is well-known for saying.

Morgan is a prime example of insanity, hosting talk-crap radio.

Morgan is the last person for anyone looking for rationality to listen to.

Now I know it's not 'politically correct' to actually pay attention to an issue as opposed to whether it helps my party or not, but can you tell me what's inaccurate in what Gen. Batiste says?

He's absolutely correct that this administration's policies have been strategically and tactically wrong and I applaud him on having the courage to speak out. Especially in light of the fact that it has already and probably will continue to hurt his economic future.

Too bad we don't have more leaders with the courage to resign in protest, maybe if they had during the planning we wouldn't have gotten into this mess.

"We all know how truthful and forthright PBS and any George Soros group is...LOLOLOL"

Yea metprof, you must be one of the flat-earth profs.

You right kooks just simply attack any media source that provides any contrary info to the delusions on which you desperately want to hang.

People like you amply demonstrate that the kook right are totally irrational. You prove Colbert's point, "Reality is a well-known liberal bias."

What mess? Why is he bailing on his own plan when it is finally working? Maybe its those white spots.
======================

Wieder-

I just copied what that Conservative hack place- PBS- transcribed.

You have an issue with them-call them up and tell them what a Conservative hack site they are.

Follow the link-it's cut and paste-simple as that.

Also while you're at it tell CBS what CONSERVATIVE HACKS they are for FIRING Batiste because they consider him to be BIASED.

It's pretty bad when you are the Ad Man for a group funded by George Soros, which co-ordinates strategy with Move On, and ENDORSED ONLY DEMOCRATS last election cycle.

Batiste is an IDIOT if he thought those actions would make him look UNBIASED.

Hell even CBS couldn't deny it.

Wieder's evolved from 'poop' to 'kook'. What's next?
=================================

As to kim, the terms are interchangeable.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What happened to conservatives being advocates for free speech? Yes, they ought to lose their 501(c)(4) status if it could be reasonably demonstrated that they are a political advocacy group. I hardly think that endorsing only Democrats is partisan, though, when one considers that of the two parties, the Democrats are the ones advocating an end to the war and thus serve the troops' interests better than Republicans. It's not a party lines thing; it's a "Maybe we should do something about all of the soldiers getting killed in Iraq" thing. I'm sure they'd have happily endorsed an anti-war Republican who was running against a pro-war Democrat...

Votevets.org is a group funded by George Soros.
On Newshour with PBS the spokesperson for the group not only doesn't deny that

Oh, please. I don't know whether they're funded by Soros or not, but the excerpt you cited shouldn't come close to providing even tinfoil fodder on that topic. Morgan makes some long rant that mentions Soros, and you're drawing a conclusion because when she's finally done attacking him on multiple issues, Soltz doesn't go back to deny that specific point that you're interested in, and therefore you conclude that she was right?

Bush was asked point blank if he was a coke-head, and he "didn't deny it". That denial is supposed to leave the issue unresolved, according to the right. But failing to deny one particular point in a multi-paragraph attack is somehow proof to you that the point was correct. Bizarre, to say the least.

Weider, you cannot straigten out the lies of the left. There too many and for too long. Soros is a sorry anti american piece of dog shit. He has not affection for this country and is only in it for the money. The world would be better served if he should have a bad even fatal accident, soon. Whereas you need to suffer the consequences of your opinion. If the cowards in the leadership positions in the democratic party who jump when Soros says so cause the loss in Iraq, like a previous generation of cowards did in Viet Nam. There will be hell to pay. Get out your check book.

Zelsdorf, when you begin a sentence with "If", you generally end it with a consequent.

Please list things that Soros has done that classify him as "anti American". (By the way, that ought to be hyphenated.) Being affiliated with MoveOn.org does not count unless you can list pernicious goings-on that that organization is responsible for. Opposing everything Bush & Co. propose and do isn't anti-American either, unless you're willing to also classify two thirds of America as such (which would then logically call into question your understanding of the word "American", no?)

Oh, and the anti-war crowd didn't lose the war in Vietnam; the Communists beat the U.S. and its allies. Thirty five years after the fact and idiots like you still refuse to acknowledge that Uncle Sam got a bloody nose and limped home. If only someone had shot Jane Fonda and John Kerry, all of southeast Asia would be thriving democracies, right? You're a clown.

kim- c'mon let's live in a little reality here. Nobody, even war supporters, don't think that Iraq isn't a mess. Maybe it's salvagable but it is still a mess.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III- I don' know if Soros is in it for the money but at least he's consistant in his positions. Rupert Murdoch is definitely in it for the money. He supports conservative Christian groups, uses FNC to campaign for their views yet in the UK and elsewhere publishes porn like the Sun newpaper http://www.page3.com/index2.shtml

The only thing that's consistant in these businesses is that they make money. There is no politics involved. I like making money but I seem to sense that your attack on Soros making money may veil some other issues. Your post seems to fit into the "International Jewish Conspiracy" formula. I hope I'm wrong.

Man, Lorie, you're setting out the troll bait this morning.

I think I'll just sit back and watch them flock here. -lol-

Did I call it, or did I call it?

O'Reilly keeps posting the chart showing all the Soros money and where all it flows. It's scary. But then, so are liberals.

ummmm

Ghee let's go to the George Soros School of how to look patriotic-

1) Short the US dollar-do this after 9/11 and while America is fighting a war on two different fronts.

2) After doing this become politically active and support only anti-war groups who might aid in America's defeat in the Middle East, which will encourage instability in the region upsetting the world markets in your favor.

3) Do this after being CONVICTED of INSIDER TRADING in FRANCE.

George Soros' three easy steps to looking like an American Patriot.

ummm

"Oh, and the anti-war crowd didn't lose the war in Vietnam; the Communists beat the U.S. and its allies." Tell that to the North Vietnamese:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13121

Yep, you're right. They are communist. (duh...)

O'Reilly keeps posting an amateurish collection of names and arrows that alleges to show the connection between Soros' money, the "left-wing smear sites" and the mainstream media. It contains nothing of substance and proves not a thing. Billy the Bully seems to have produced it from deep within that place where the sun never shines. The only real scary thing is that anyone would believe it means something.

Thanks for trying, Rory. In turn:

1) One guy shorted the US dollar?
2) Supporting groups that are opposed to the war isn't unpatriotic. Provide empirical evidence that an unstable Middle East will financially benefit Soros.
3) Insider trading in France makes him un-American?

It's hilarious that anybody thinks this point is even debatable anymore, but here goes. The North Vietnamese beat the Americans. The anti-war left (which was more like the anti-war left, centre, and paleo-conservative) was a reaction to facts, not self-righteous hippie hyperbole. How many more American lives would you have expended to defeat Communists in a third world country halfway across the planet? What if China eventually said "Fuck this" and stepped in militarily? It wouldn't have been an unreasonable response to what they would undoubtedly perceive as Western interference in their region, would it?

ummm...

Read up on Operation Linebacker II sometime.

Then consider if we'd kept up operations like that.

Of course, I am sure you'll do neither, you'll just sit and spin.

Ummm:
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about, but then, not having been there, how could you. Go back under your rock.

The reason, as I understand, that MoveOn does not have problems with Mcgold is that they do not mention individual candidates. The problem for the Republican Party is for their Swiftboaters to be effective, they must name names. Now, if you made
Monica Goodling a 501c3, her immunized testimony
would be a violation. Hope that doesn't give the
craven any ideas.

Other than that, why does the Right hate Veterans?

Other than that, why does the Right hate Veterans? Posted by: Semanticleo at May 13, 2007 03:48 PM

Why do you libtard cockroaches ask such stupid questions?

LOL@ Steve.. well said!

Take a deep breath Weider....it's a nice day outside.

In response to your comment "People like you amply demonstrate that the kook right are totally irrational. You prove Colbert's point, "Reality is a well-known liberal bias." .....I need only refer you to anything Bill Moyers, that huge centrist from the largely unbiased PBS has said within the last 5 years. I won't even begin to discuss Nina Totenburg.

btw Weider, wonder why PBS refuses to show the documentary "Islam vs Islamists"...what with their burning desire to be an unbiased news paragon......hhhhuummm.

In addition, many of us don't have the intelligence to hold iconic philosophers such as Colbert in high esteem. I suppose us squirrel-eating slubs will have to stick to Descartes.

Other than that, why does the Right hate Veterans?

Let's see...

George H.W. Bush is a veteran.
George W. Bush is a veteran.
John McCain is a veteran.
Bob Dole is a veteran.
Gerald Ford was a veteran.
Ronald Reagan was a veteran (2nd Lieutenant, 322nd Cavalry, later transferred to the Army Air Force).
Richard Nixon was a veteran.

Shall I continue?

Nice call C-C-G! Any good stock tips?

A right wing group organized similarly to votevets.org would be "Move America Forward", which is a 501(c)(3) organization, subject to very similar rules as VoteVets.org.

Actually, VoteVets is allowed to do unlimited lobbying as part of its 501c4 status; MAF is limited to around 15-20% of its expenditures.

The IRS can remove the tax exempt status faster than they awarded it. Obtained by fraud, cancel it immediately.

Ya know what this is like? It's a little like two kids arguing over whether the capital of australia is melbourne or sydney. They're both wrong, and the information is easy to get, but they continue yammering on regardless.

And this happens regularly on wizbang: this is another in a string of hopelessly misinformed posts about tax exempt status and political activities. Well, at least it's good for a chuckle.

>I think I'll just sit back and watch them flock here. -lol-
Did I call it, or did I call it?

Wow, Lorie posts an anti-veteran attack, and you predict that Democrats will come out to defend them? Gee, you're a regular Nostradamus.

Oh, by the way... of the 39 comments as of when I'm typing this, 56% of them are from the right. Those must be the "trolls" of which you spoke, eh?

>why does the Right hate Veterans?
Why do you libtard cockroaches ask such stupid questions?

Oh, so "why does the left hate America" and "why does the left love terrorists" are great and wonderful questions, but "why does the right hate veterans" is so clearly a stupid question.

Boy, you people are perverted.

Easy, 'cuz we don't. We even love the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, some of them veterans. I could hold a soft spot in my heart for Webb if I didn't smell murderer blood.
==============================

They are are stupid questions Brian, but here's one for you:

Why does the left-leaning (to be kind) washington post feel no remorse about making/recieving phone calls from known al-Qaeda operatives? (ther call refers to kidnapped American soldiers in Iraq):

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a telephone interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him."Oh, and notice his ref to democrats in the US. But... but... but THEY pay no attention to US internal politics do they Brian?

I wonder... did the WaPo contact the CIA/NSA to track this call while the jihadist-cut-throat was still on the line?

Damn broken blockquote code! This section should also be blocked:

But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him.

Zelsdorf, when you begin a sentence with "If", you generally end it with a consequent.

"There will be hell to pay" was the consequent. Thanks for the grammar lesson, but it seems to have been a punctuation fault instead.

Why does the left-leaning (to be kind) washington post feel no remorse about making/recieving phone calls from known al-Qaeda operatives?

Beats me. But the WaPo doesn't speak for me, so I have no problem criticizing them for something stupid while at the same time criticizing the blindly Bush-loyal right, the incompetent mismanagement of the war, and the disrespecting of our vets.

the disrespecting of our vets.

Yeah, I know, Bush even called the troops stupid on camera.

Oh, wait, that was another Presidential candidate from 2004... hmmm... who could have said that if you're not smart and don't do your homework you end up in Iraq...

Oh wow, are you one of those who is still all hung up on Kerry? I suppose, then, that you take all of Bush's misspeaking literally too, eh? Well, good lucking finding those families covered in food, and those OB/GYNs practicing their love. Once you do, perhaps then you can get over yourself, turn your attention to the American soldiers dying daily, and stop whining about John Kerry.

Once again, Brian decides to insult me rather than admit that one of the leaders of the anti-war folks himself disrespected the vets.

[yawn] Typical lefty response. Someone give me a challenge, please!

When John Kerry stops whining about John Kerry, I'll think about stopping whining about him. I'd hate to quit, though.
===================================

I know punctuation is important, but so is understanding what is written. If you disagree with my premice, write about it. It has been a long time since English 101.

A letter addressed to Harry Reid from a High Ranking member in the Navy made it perfectly clear: "YOUR WORDS ARE KILLING US".

Democrats do not support our Troops or our Country. They are killing both. Payback is going to be a bitch.

Once again, Brian decides to insult me rather than admit that one of the leaders of the anti-war folks himself disrespected the vets.

Hmm, nope, don't see it. Though I do see that you're still whining about John Kerry rather than admit that the leader of the free world makes more verbal blunders in a week than Kerry did in his whole campaign. (Which is the issue, by the way, that you raised as a means to change the subject from the initial point... don't think no one noticed.)

A letter addressed to Harry Reid from a High Ranking member in the Navy made it perfectly clear: "YOUR WORDS ARE KILLING US".

Hey, Rob. Care to cite Mr. High Ranking? (Or is that Adm. High Ranking?) Thought not.

So how about this? Letter from Republicans: "The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment... So far, they've not been able do anything they promised..."

Are those words killing anybody? Check with Adm. High Ranking and get back to us, OK?

Don't you watch what goes on in the House and Senate Floor? What the fuck do you care , your just a stupid lying POS when your not quoting someone.

"The Iraqi government is a huge disappointment... So far, they've not been able do anything they promised..."

They have the same problem as the democrats I see.

"Are those words killing anybody"

Are they surrendering to the enemy and calling the war lost?

No stupid. Only you cowardly democrats cause the death of Millions with your diabolical lies and evil self worshipping.

"get back to us?"

What makes you think you are a part of "US"? You can hardly speak for yourself.

Lefties would train a thoroughbred race horse but refuse to let it race. They will train a police force but do not want them to police. Now they want to train military troops but not let them do what they were trained to do. And this "moron" thinks republicans don't get it? ww

Hmm, nope, don't see it.

Take the lefty blinders off and you'll be able to see it.

nts, Iraq is a mess, such a mess that people are dying defending their neighborhoods, rather than disappearing en masse in the night. I'm happy to see you can applaud the improvement.
============================