Why do some consider MoveOn.org a radical, or even "hate", group?

[bbernardini]

Some Repub TV ads in PA have referred to Lois Murphy as being aligned with moveon.org, calling them "radical." Some jackass on Usenet this evening referred to them as a "liberal hate group." What, pray tell, have MoveOn done that could be considered the actions of a "hate group"?

[DURHAM D]

1. Gettin' out that truth - that's hateful. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. Are you new or something? lol - just being Democratic/liberal is enuff...

[upi402]

cuz they hate our freedom???

:shrug:

[Me.]

3. Swiftboating By The Right

Who take exception to the truth

*shadow government*

[johnaries]

4. Spread the Truth. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. They Hate Monarchy?

The evil bastards at MoveOn want a Democracy.

[Nolo_Contendre]

6. "You're either with us or against us"

And if you are against this regime, you are part of the radical insurgent enemy.

[Vincardog]

7. Typical Reich wing tactic what ever your worst aspect is project it

onto your opponent. Make them deny it and immunize your self against it.
Witness Swift boating JK by chicken hawk warmongers .

[BuyingThyme]

10. Yes, it's purely projection.

[XOKCowboy]

8. Because they empower the "little guys"

It scares the hell out of the NeoCons that thousands of people can make a difference a little at a time. They let their members determine who/what they should support and then those same people send in a few dollars to support those views. It's one of the truly "grass-roots" political organizations and they're successful.

A NeoCon's nightmare.

[bridgit]

9. they have the audacity to publish contrary to the neocon propaganda...

machine and to 'them' they are therefore hateful...what is 'usenet'...you mean these guys :shrug:

1. Usenet is not an organization.

No person or group has authority over Usenet as a whole. No one
controls who gets a news feed, which articles are propagated
where, who can post articles, or anything else. There is no
"Usenet Incorporated," nor is there a "Usenet User's Group."
You're on your own.

Granted, there are various activities organized by means of Usenet
newsgroups. The newsgroup creation process is one such
activity. But it would be a mistake to equate Usenet with the
organized activities it makes possible. If they were to stop
tomorrow, Usenet would go on without them.

2. Usenet is not a democracy.

Since there is no person or group in charge of Usenet as a whole
-- i.e. there is no Usenet "government" -- it follows that Usenet
cannot be a democracy, autocracy, or any other kind of "-acy."
(But see "The Camel's Nose?" below.)

3. Usenet is not fair.

After all, who shall decide what's fair? For that matter, if
someone is behaving unfairly, who's going to stop him? Neither
you nor I, that's certain.

4. Usenet is not a right.

Some people misunderstand their local right of "freedom of speech"
to mean that they have a legal right to use others' computers to
say what they wish in whatever way they wish, and the owners of
said computers have no right to stop them.

Those people are wrong. Freedom of speech also means freedom not
to speak. If I choose not to use my computer to aid your speech,
that is my right. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own
one.

5. Usenet is not a public utility.

Some Usenet sites are publicly funded or subsidized. Most of
them, by plain count, are not. There is no government monopoly
on Usenet, and little or no government control.

6. Usenet is not an academic network.

WORDS TO LIVE BY #1:
USENET AS SOCIETY
--------------------

Those who have never tried electronic communication may not be aware
of what a "social skill" really is. One social skill that must be
learned, is that other people have points of view that are not only
different, but *threatening*, to your own. In turn, your opinions may
be threatening to others. There is nothing wrong with this. Your
beliefs need not be hidden behind a facade, as happens with
face-to-face conversation. Not everybody in the world is a bosom
buddy, but you can still have a meaningful conversation with them.
The person who cannot do this lacks in social skills.

-- Nick Szabo


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1

[tkmorris]

11. It's unbelievable. In 2004......

My wife and I went door-to-door on behalf of MoveOn, to get out the vote and get a feel for who everyone was voting for. Most people were fairly reasonable about it all, even encouraging but at about every 10th house as soon as people heard the name "MoveOn.org" they went batshit. I don't know if it was Rush, or Bill, or Faux in general but someone had convinced these people that MoveOn was a far-left group trying to spread Communism or some such. We were afraid on a couple of occasions that we might actually be physically attacked, such was the depth of these people's hatred for the group. I half expected this one lady to start shouting that MoveOn was "Dark Sided!".

It didn't mean much. There is a certain segment that actually believes all the crap that the above named pundits spew, it should not have been a surprise to us. What bothers me is that we don't challenge the bullshit more. These guys can get away with saying anything they want to because rarely does anyone call them on it. Shaking our heads and saying "What do you expect? Bill is full of shit" doesn't do anything to prevent the spread of said bullshit.

I really think we need to work harder to challenge these guys. Go on their shows and call them liars right to their face. They control the media, at least THEIR portions of it, which is all some folks watch or listen to. We need to get our voices on there, even if it is in an environment where they control the microphones.

I won't work with MoveOn again. It's not a bad group really, and it can be an effective tool but it isn't for me. The organization is controlled too much by those at the top, while those at the bottom are used to raise funds and pound pavement but rarely listened to. That's my take on it anyway, YMMV.

[NMMNG]

12. Because they spread the truth and are not "with" the RWers

Therefore they are hateful, radical and dangerous. :rofl:

[spag68]

13. Because they are non- thinking drones?